The new 128 Basic slave Rules are finally released !
jk
Hi:
Just wanted to let people here know that the newest version of the 128 Basic
slave Rules have finally been finished. They will be published in the Feb. 98
issue of Secret Magazine and they presently can be found on the following 4
websites:
www.clarityconnet.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm
www.iac.net/~llk/personal/slvrules.htm
dc.jones.com/~thezoo/index.html
members.tripod.com/~drkdesyre/index.htm
I have given each of the owners of these sites permission to use the rules set
on their websites. Yes, I wrote the rules set.
And I would like to open a discussion on any issues any of you find with the
rules set.
thanx,
Johnathan Kay
Serion Ironcroft
On Thu, 11 Dec 97 12:26:30 GMT, in message <66oq2f$m...@q.seanet.com>,
tr...@trace.seanet.com (jk) wrote in part:
>Just wanted to let people here know that the newest version of the 128 Basic
>slave Rules have finally been finished. They will be published in the Feb. 98
>issue of Secret Magazine and they presently can be found on the following 4
>websites:
>
>www.clarityconnet.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm
>www.iac.net/~llk/personal/slvrules.htm
>dc.jones.com/~thezoo/index.html
>members.tripod.com/~drkdesyre/index.htm
You have a typo. I couldn't get a connection to "clarityconnet.com,"
but did reach:
http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm3
>And I would like to open a discussion on any issues any of you find with the
>rules set.
Hmmm... Where to begin, eh? I think I'll just summarize in general
by saying that your style and mine are considerably different.
I do have a minor quibble with Rule No. 50, to wit:
"50. i choose willingly to be treated as my Master's property - as
long as such treatment is safe and legal."
I don't know of any place, at least in North America, where one human
being treated as another's property is legal, which probably voids the
rule.
I would suggest rewriting the rule to read as follows:
"50. i choose willingly to be treated as my Master's property -
trusting that my Master will use me in a safe and humane way."
Actually, <grin> I would probably rewrite almost *all* these rules,
but as I said, we have very different styles, hm?
Another minor quibble. There is a reference somewhere to a Master
selecting a slave's sexual orientation.
I seriously doubt whether a slave's sexual orientation is subject to
selection by any human, although a slave might choose to let a master
dictate the type of sexual behavior required of the slave.
I have *major* problems with Rule No. 64, which states:
"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
intensity while we are there."
First, I think a Dom/Master must *always* respect a sub/slave's
limits, whether or not he chooses to push past them. Second, I'm
confused by the phrasing "that He too will need it as much as I will,"
which in context appears to suggest some sort of increasing dependency
on the sub by the Dom, hm?
Maybe this is not what you meant to say. Perhaps an explanation would
help clarify.
It'll be interesting to see what other folks think.
Regards,
Serion
ps: I think there's also a typo in Rule 58. The first instance of
the word "accept" probably should be "except."
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail
to LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Thu, 11 Dec 97 12:26:30 GMT, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jk)
wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Just wanted to let people here know that the newest version of the 128 Basic
>slave Rules have finally been finished. They will be published in the Feb. 98
>issue of Secret Magazine and they presently can be found on the following 4
>websites:
>
>www.clarityconnet.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm
Please note the correct URL is "connect.com"
<snip>
>And I would like to open a discussion on any issues any of you find with the
>rules set.
>
>thanx,
>
>Johnathan Kay
It is obvious that you have gone to a great deal of trouble and
effort to come up with these rules. And I think a good number of
them are excellent. I also happen to think a good number of them
are bad and some are down right dangerous. Some are just, IMO,
unnecessary.
I'm of the opinion that using lower case letters to refer to a
submissive and capitals to refer to a Dominant is condescending.
In my view, both the Dom and the sub are equal partners in
building the relationship. It was very hard for me to read
through the rules because you consistently use this format.
Since you don't know me, a word or two of explanation is probably
a good idea. I am a polyamorous lifestyle submissive and in a
24/7 relationship. I am the property of my Dom, but I am also
his Executive Assistant and involved in the day to day running of
not only his household but his business. Many of the rules you
suggest just would not be practicable in such a relationship -
although they might be very workable in a more scene oriented
style.
Now - for some good rules:
49. The opportunity to please my Master is very important to me
and i will take every chance to seek out such
opportunities to do so to the best of my abilities and in
accordance to how i have been taught or allowed to do so.
Although I don't think that a submissive should be restricted in
how sie is allowed to please hir Master/Dom. After all, if it's
pleasing - it's pleasing.
73. i shall never think of myself as a weak person for it takes a
strong female to commit to the drive inside me, to serve,
to obey and to please a Master. <snip>
Of course, it takes a strong *person* to be a submissive; males
are people too~ <g>
Rather than quote at length from what I consider to be bad rules,
let me just say that the emphasis on safewords is something I
consider a bad idea. If the Dom/me comes to rely on safewords
he/she may become careless and not watch the submissive. Also if
the Dom/me automatically stops because of a safeword, then it's
the sub who is controlling. In a nutshell, plain open
communication is, IMO, the best course.
Bluntly, rule #64 which begins, " my limits do not have to be
respected ..." is a very bad thing indeed. Limits must be
respected.
Rule # 47. i will not hesitate in my obedience to my Master. On
the surface, this is wonderful, but in fact, it is asking for
trouble. My usual explanation is that if my Dom tells me to cross
the street and doesn't see the truck coming, it is my
responsibility to *disobey* him. I'll accept punishment gladly,
if I misunderstand, but I think a sub must have the right to
question a Dom's order if in their opinion there is something the
Dom is not aware of.
"122. Should Master wish for my breasts to be suckled.... or that
legal and safe drugs be used..." I'll turn this over to one of
our resident scientists. I'm not sure of the health issues here,
but, although I've heard of Doms wanting to do it, I've never
known one who did.
This is getting to be a very long post, so let me just end by
saying that there is another group of rules here, which seem to
me to be pretty much "fantasy fodder", that is, fun to think
about but not something that will work in the context of a real
life relationship.
I would advise any submissive presented with these rules to
consider them very carefully. If you are uncomfortable with any
of them, don't hesitate to discuss them. Doms are wonderful
people but they aren't infallible and open and honest
communication is the best foundation for any relationship.
Regards,
LadyGold
--There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. Nelson Mandela 1994
Tom Robertson
Serion Ironcroft wrote:
>You have a typo. I couldn't get a connection to "clarityconnet.com,"
>but did reach:
>
> http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm3
I tried this, and failed to find it.
>I have *major* problems with Rule No. 64, which states:
>
>"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
>take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
>the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
>side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
>is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
>relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
>as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
>intensity while we are there."
>
>First, I think a Dom/Master must *always* respect a sub/slave's
>limits, whether or not he chooses to push past them.
I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
any.
louise
>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>any.
Does anybody except for me feel this statement is objectionable?
Or did i miss a smiley face or a <grin> somewhere?
--
louise louis...@hotmail.com
lou...@usa.net
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities.
-- H. Melville, 1851
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
>Serion Ironcroft wrote:
>>I have *major* problems with Rule No. 64, which states:
>>
>>"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
>>take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
>>the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
>>side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
>>is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
>>relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
>>as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
>>intensity while we are there."
>>
>>First, I think a Dom/Master must *always* respect a sub/slave's
>>limits, whether or not he chooses to push past them.
>
>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>any.
And just what's wrong with being a 'TPEer' ?
I heartily agree with Serion in that if the master and slave have negotiated
limits they not only should but *must* be respected. If the master chooses to
go to the 'edge' of these limits in an attempt to renegotiate ... that's his
or her right, but he or she does not have the right to willfully excede
negotiated limits.
However, as for Tom's point ... there are negotiations which will end with the
slave having *no* limits. The master will be given the authority to do
whatever, whenever ... this is a *valid* lifestyle choice for some. And I know
of a few who are searching for it.
In my own situation, there is one (and only one) area where my sweetie has
given me *total* authority -- her education. She takes what courses *I*
decide, when I decide she should take them, and performs at a level to meet my
expectations ... this is an area where she has given me her limits do do with
as I wish ... not TPE by any means, but an area with no limits.
Skeeve
bob...@sprintmail.com
skee...@hotmail.com
There's a huge difference between "I don't agree, please explain further" and "I don't agree, you don't know what you're talking about." -- Shunyata (SSB-B 1997)
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>>any.
>And just what's wrong with being a 'TPEer' ?
If the word "total" is used literally, a "TPE" can't exist, and it's
wrong to go to the extreme of trying to have one. If the adjective
"reasonably" is put before it, it can be valid, though. Short of a
dom being God, it is never right for a sub to completely abandon his
or her own judgment regarding what his or her dom requests.
>there are negotiations which will end with the
>slave having *no* limits. The master will be given the authority to do
>whatever, whenever ... this is a *valid* lifestyle choice for some.
Pledging oneself to be willing to take a machine gun and go to the
nearest grade school and start mowing down children if one's dom told
one to is not a valid lifestyle choice. That is just one example of
what I include within "no limits," since, if "no limits" excludes
anything, the word "limits" isn't being used literally, and since it
is so easy just to use the term "reasonable limits" to describe such a
relationship, I see no reason not to use the term "no limits"
literally. The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
>Skeeve wrote:
>>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>>>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>>>any.
>>And just what's wrong with being a 'TPEer' ?
>If the word "total" is used literally, a "TPE" can't exist, and it's
>wrong to go to the extreme of trying to have one.
Why? Just because you choose not to persue that route, why is it wrong for
others?
> If the adjective "reasonably" is put before it, it can be valid, though.
Yes, that is another valid lifestyle choice. But again, who defines
reasonably? Do we have to use your definition or do the individuals involved
get to define it?
> Short of a dom being God, it is never right for a sub to completely
> abandon his or her own judgment regarding what his or her dom requests.
This sounds a lot like you are trying to define reasonably for everyone.
>>there are negotiations which will end with the
>>slave having *no* limits. The master will be given the authority to do
>>whatever, whenever ... this is a *valid* lifestyle choice for some.
>Pledging oneself to be willing to take a machine gun and go to the
>nearest grade school and start mowing down children if one's dom told
>one to is not a valid lifestyle choice.
Are you saying that there are *no* individuals this loyal to their master? Or
is it the ones that *are* this loyal have not made a *valid* choice?
Then this would mean that those who have dedicated their lives in service of
any leader would have made invalid choices. I'm sure that the families of all
the religeous martyrs would be happy to hear this. (Also using an extreme
example)
Power exchange is power exchange, regardless of why.
>That is just one example of what I include within "no limits," since,
>if "no limits" excludes anything, the word "limits" isn't being used
>literally, and since it is so easy just to use the term "reasonable limits"
>to describe such a relationship, I see no reason not to use the term "no
>limits" literally.
Again, who defines *reasonable*? And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I
always assume that they mean it literally.
>The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
>meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
>whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
>is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges things so
that they cannot refuse a request?
I agree that the 'just following orders' defense does justify a wrong act or
excuse the person who committed it, but there are many who follow orders
blindly and without question. It's (imo) human nature--there are many more
followers than leaders.
And where is the master rule book which tells us the requirements for
submission?
Spyral Fox
In article <34a1a680....@news.mindspring.com>,
louis...@hotmail.com (louise) writes, in resonse to comments
about rule #64, which reads:
>"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
>take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
>the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
>side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
>is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
>relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
>as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
I'll note thatthe text above is taken from another post, I have not
been to the actual website and will not comment on any
of the other rules.
=On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:29:29 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
=Robertson) wrote:
=
=>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
=>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
=>any.
=
=Does anybody except for me feel this statement is objectionable?
Me.
While some people enjoy edge-play, and have "fuzzy" limits that can be
_pushed_, I read this as allowing *violation* of stated limits, as proof
that you *really* trust the Dom.
I have very clear limits, and most of them exist for good reasons.
I cannot imagine being around a Dom who could safely push many of
those limits outside of a fully equipped hospital. I am not comfortable
either with the idea of having a relationship where I, as a sub, have stated
limits that the Dom can violate because the Dom thinks it's OK and
I'm "ready" for it. Further, I don't think it matters psycholgically where
the limits are, if it's at dismemberment, blood sports, piercing, or even
the missionary position. One's limits are just as real to one no matter
where they are.
In many cases, such a scenario would lead to a loss of trust from
the sub, because of abused trust. And, potentially, such violation of
stated limits because the Dom feels the sub is "ready" could include
actual abuse, "excused" by the Dom telling the sub "if you really
loved me and trusted me, you wouldn't question my having done that...."
To steal a phrase: Feh.
take care,
- - -Spyral Fox spyr...@aol.com
"What makes you think I'd do as you say? Ani l'dodi."
My Owner is: lordr...@aol.com
San Diego Info & Links: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Next Munches: 12/14, 1/27
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>Skeeve wrote:
>>>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>>>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>>>>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>>>>any.
>>>And just what's wrong with being a 'TPEer' ?
>>If the word "total" is used literally, a "TPE" can't exist, and it's
>>wrong to go to the extreme of trying to have one.
>Why? Just because you choose not to persue that route, why is it wrong for
>others?
It would be an abdication of one's responsibility as a human being to
completely throw away one's own judgment,
>> If the adjective "reasonably" is put before it, it can be valid, though.
>Yes, that is another valid lifestyle choice. But again, who defines
>reasonably? Do we have to use your definition or do the individuals involved
>get to define it?
I don't see the point of the question. Whether something is
reasonable or not does not depend on anyone's perception of whether or
not it is reasonable.
>> Short of a dom being God, it is never right for a sub to completely
>> abandon his or her own judgment regarding what his or her dom requests.
>This sounds a lot like you are trying to define reasonably for everyone.
I don't see how it sounds like that.
>>Pledging oneself to be willing to take a machine gun and go to the
>>nearest grade school and start mowing down children if one's dom told
>>one to is not a valid lifestyle choice.
>Are you saying that there are *no* individuals this loyal to their master? Or
>is it the ones that *are* this loyal have not made a *valid* choice?
I am saying that no individual should try to be completely loyal to
anyone who is fallible.
>Then this would mean that those who have dedicated their lives in service >of any leader would have made invalid choices. I'm sure that the families of >all the religeous martyrs would be happy to hear this. (Also using an >extreme example)
Yes. Anyone who completely blindly follows the dictates of any other
human being has made a wrong choice.
>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >mean it literally.
I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
object.
>>The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
>>meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
>>whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
>>is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
>What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges things >so that they cannot refuse a request?
Then he or she has made probably the most dangerous mistake possible.
And for what? Sexual pleasure?
Matthew Malthouse
In article <66q7iq$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
} Serion Ironcroft wrote:
}
} >You have a typo. I couldn't get a connection to "clarityconnet.com,"
} >but did reach:
} >
} > http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm3
}
} I tried this, and failed to find it.
}
} >I have *major* problems with Rule No. 64, which states:
} >
} >"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
} >take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
} >the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
} >side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
} >is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
} >relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
} >as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
} >intensity while we are there."
} >
} >First, I think a Dom/Master must *always* respect a sub/slave's
} >limits, whether or not he chooses to push past them.
}
} I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
} such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
} any.
I'm not so sure.
As a sub who doesn't care for pain but who does crave punishment as part of
a regime I am acutely aware of limits, my own most of all.
It would be my hope (though only a rare experience) that a Dom would have
the judgement and skill to push those limits, especially in directions that
mattered to him.
If my limits are attacked without regard to my condition and preparedness
then I'm going to hurt and it isn't going to work.
If however my limits are never pushed my immediate reaction is that the Dom
hasn't been as domly as he might and the longer term concern is that I
would never be able to expand what I am cabable of submitting too and/or
enjoying.
Because of this I have sometimes (but again rarely) come to trust a Dom to
the extent that we can agree 'in these circumstances/ for this activity the
safeword doesn't work'. To date I have screamed and wept, but not regretted
the decision.
I think there are times and places where limits have to be pushed but the
sub must have confidence in the Dom's judgement when doing so.
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/index.html
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
louise
(The following is rule #64 and we are discussing it here.. )
>"64. my limits do not have to be respected - i trust my Master to
>take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
>the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
>side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
>is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
>relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
>as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
>intensity while we are there.":
>> mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>>
>>>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>>>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>>>any.
>louis...@hotmail.com (louise) writes referring to Tom's comment,
>>Does anybody except for me feel this statement is objectionable?
On 12 Dec 1997 20:50:12 GMT, spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) wrote:
>Me.
Thank you... it sure seemed intolerant of certain lifestyles, but i
wasn't sure if that's what he meant.
>While some people enjoy edge-play, and have "fuzzy" limits that can be
>_pushed_, I read this as allowing *violation* of stated limits, as proof
>that you *really* trust the Dom.
The sense that i personally got out of the original post was that the
slave would trust her Dom not to push any of her limits in such a way
as to harm her, and that the slave was therefore giving him the
decision of where to push and how hard.
>I have very clear limits, and most of them exist for good reasons.
>I cannot imagine being around a Dom who could safely push many of
>those limits outside of a fully equipped hospital.
Oh, i interpreted it a little differently where it said in Rule #64
above, that he could push "when he expects i am ready" meant she
trusts him to judge when she is ready, and to not harm her...
>I am not comfortable
>either with the idea of having a relationship where I, as a sub, have stated
>limits that the Dom can violate because the Dom thinks it's OK and
>I'm "ready" for it.
Well, but your lifestyle is different from TPE and that's ok too, you
know.
>Further, I don't think it matters psycholgically where
>the limits are, if it's at dismemberment, blood sports, piercing, or even
>the missionary position. One's limits are just as real to one no matter
>where they are.
i don't think i would personally submit to a Master who could ever
feel i was ready for dismemberment, and so on. Masters have their own
limits, too... That's one reason why those who prefer TPE or extreme
D/s should (in my very strong opinion) be very very careful about who
they select to do this with... It can take a very long time to find
the right person for a TPE type relationship. And i fully understand
that some people prefer not to do this at all, and i think that's a
very valid choice also. There's no rule book that says you have to do
bdsm in any certain way, and i know that i am probably preaching to
the choir here... :)
Certainly, you wouldn't like it if somebody told you that you *had* to
trust your Master not to dismember you, or engage in blood sports or
piercing or the missionary position or whatever your limits are. Just
as those who have a different lifestyle don't like to be told that
they *have* to limit their trust. i think we agree, but we're coming
to this from different viewpoints perhaps.
>In many cases, such a scenario would lead to a loss of trust from
>the sub, because of abused trust.
i completely agree. In fact, that is why people such as me who prefer
extreme kinds of D/s must be careful... One does not want to submit to
an abuser, after all. Although many aspects of such an experience
could be abusive if done by an abuser, they are not if done in a truly
D/s context. A parallel might be drawn between SM and physical abuse,
i suppose...
>And, potentially, such violation of
>stated limits because the Dom feels the sub is "ready" could include
>actual abuse, "excused" by the Dom telling the sub "if you really
>loved me and trusted me, you wouldn't question my having done that...."
Yes, this can happen. Also, people have been known to physically abuse
submissive masochists. IMO that doesn't mean that interest in an SM
lifestyle is invalid... it just means that one must be reasonably
careful... but then that's true of crossing the street, too. :)
Thanks for such an interesting and thought provoking post, Spyral.
louise
>It would be an abdication of one's responsibility as a human being to
>completely throw away one's own judgment,
As i see it, one doesn't throw it away, one gives it to one's
Master... it's called submission, then, and submissions can be great
or more limited, this partially defining the style of bdsm preferred.
To say that someone who does D/s differently than you is abdicating
their responsibility as a human being is unreasonably intolerant for
this group, in my opinion.
If anybody out there besides Skeeve and me agrees that this kind of
bigotry doesn't help to provide a tolerant, accepting, ssb-b, and that
therefore it is not to be silently condoned, please post saying that.
Read the thread first, and see if you might possibly agree with me...
and whether you want to let this pass uncommented.
We need to have an ssb-b that is tolerant and open to all bdsm
lifestyles, even extreme D/s, if we are to reach the full potential of
this group, i believe.
Thank you.
WickdVixen
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote on Thu, Dec 11, 1997 21:29 EST
Message-id: <66q7iq$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Serion Ironcroft wrote:
>
>>You have a typo. I couldn't get a connection to "clarityconnet.com,"
>>but did reach:
>>
>> http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm3
>
>I tried this, and failed to find it.
>
>>I have *major* problems with Rule No. 64, which states:
>>
>>take me past them when He expects that i am ready - for each side of
>>the wall of my limitations is both pleasurable and a challenge - one
>>side more intense than the other. My only hope in such transferences
>>is that Master will be able to take me there again and again as my
>>relationship to Him progresses through time, that He too will need it
>>as much as i will, and that He will not be afraid to increase the
>>intensity while we are there."
>>
>>limits, whether or not he chooses to push past them.
>
>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>any.
>
I disagree. If a sub and a dom have the same limits, then all the fuss about
setting and stating limits and pledging not to cross those lines doesn't need
to happen.
(I'll ignore the slam at TPE that I perceived there, and I'll not comment on
the other rules in this post.)
For example, my subs don't need to say "forced fem is a limit and intense
humiliation is a limit" because they know I am not into those things. My
bondage bunny sub who is into light sensation play doesn't need to say "canes
are a limit" because he knows that I don't enjoy hurting someone who doesn't
enjoy being hurt.
If you know your dom, and you have the same philosophies, then limits do not
have to be stated. They know I am not going to take them anywhere they don't
want to go. That is how I interpreted that rule. I will say, however, that
new folks reading that rule probably would not interpret it the same way I do,
and in that respect it is not a good thing.
Vixen
(the wicked one)
=======================================
"Beat me", said the masochist. "No", said the sadist
=======================================
WickdVixen
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson)
>Date: Fri, Dec 12, 1997 18:19 EST
>Message-id: <66sgqa$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>
<snip a conversation between Skeeve and Tom Robertson except this part which I
am responding to>
Tom:>>>The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
>>>meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
>>>whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
>>>is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
>
Skeeve:>>What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges
things
>>so that they cannot refuse a request?
>
Tom:>Then he or she has made probably the most dangerous mistake possible.
>And for what? Sexual pleasure?
>
>
People who make such decisions and give themselves totally to another person
generally have more reasons than "he makes me wet".
All BDSM and certainly all TPE relationships are not sexually based.
Skeeve
A continuing discussion between Tom Robertson and myself. I have included two
additional comments, one by louise and one by Vixen (the wicked one) at the
appropriate points in the conversation.
Comments beginning with a * are new.
Tom: I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have any.
Skeeve: And just what's wrong with being a 'TPEer' ?
Tom: If the word "total" is used literally, a "TPE" can't exist, and it's
wrong to go to the extreme of trying to have one.
Skeeve: Why? Just because you choose not to persue that route, why is it wrong
for others?
Tom: It would be an abdication of one's responsibility as a human being to
completely throw away one's own judgment,
louise: As i see it, one doesn't throw it away, one gives it to one's
Master... it's called submission, then, and submissions can be great or more
limited, this partially defining the style of bdsm preferred.
*Skeeve: I have to agree with louise here. There is a big difference between
throwing something away and willingly giving it away. If using your judgement
is a responsibility of being human, are those who use poor judgement (for
whatever reason) irresponsible ? or are they simply not human ?
Tom: If the adjective "reasonably" is put before it, it can be valid, though.
Skeeve: Yes, that is another valid lifestyle choice. But again, who defines
reasonably? Do we have to use your definition or do the individuals involved
get to define it?
Tom: I don't see the point of the question. Whether something is reasonable
or not does not depend on anyone's perception of whether or not it is
reasonable.
*Skeeve: Then there is a universal definition of reasonable that applies to
everyone ? I must have missed that one somewhere along the line. Could you
enlighten us ?
Tom: Short of a dom being God, it is never right for a sub to completely
abandon his or her own judgment regarding what his or her dom requests.
Skeeve: This sounds a lot like you are trying to define reasonably for
everyone.
Tom: I don't see how it sounds like that.
*Skeeve: Your statement above, along with the previous one seem to imply that
'everyone' knows what reasonable is. However, I feel that some things that may
be reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me or vice versa. Whose
reasonable is correct ? Must I follow your idea of reasonable or must you
defer to mine ? Or are they both correct ?
An example from a previous thread is the case of the Domme and her sub in the
restaraunt. The Domme in question felt it was 'reasonable' for her sub to eat
off of the floor, whereas her aquaintance did not feel it was reasonable.
Which idea of reasonable is the right one ?
Tom: Pledging oneself to be willing to take a machine gun and go to the
nearest grade school and start mowing down children if one's dom told one to
is not a valid lifestyle choice.
*Skeeve: What is the difference between that and the military officer in
charge of thermonuclear weapons ? Hasn't he or she committed themselves to do
exactly what you describe above but on a much grander scale ?
Skeeve: Are you saying that there are *no* individuals this loyal to their
master? Or is it the ones that *are* this loyal have not made a *valid*
choice?
Tom: I am saying that no individual should try to be completely loyal to
anyone who is fallible.
*Skeeve: I know that many churches and generals would disagree.
Skeeve: Then this would mean that those who have dedicated their lives in
service of any leader would have made invalid choices. I'm sure that the
families of all the religeous martyrs would be happy to hear this. (Also using
an extreme example)
Tom: Yes. Anyone who completely blindly follows the dictates of any other
human being has made a wrong choice.
*Skeeve: But just because it was wrong, was it invalid. I don't think that
validity has anything to do with right or wrong.
Skeeve: And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they
mean it literally.
Tom: I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another human
being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the bliss of
complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its object.
*Skeeve: Just because it scares *you*, why should others be restricted ?
Homosexuality 'scares' many people--should they be allowed to dictate its
practice ?
As for Waco--was it the follower's blind devotion or someone trying to
interfere with this devotion the cause of the tragedy there ?
Tom: The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is meant that the
sub always retains the responsibility for deciding whether or not what he or
she is requested to do is reasonable, which is required for submission to be a
valid lifestyle choice.
Skeeve: What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges
things so that they cannot refuse a request?
Tom: Then he or she has made probably the most dangerous mistake possible. And
for what? Sexual pleasure?
Vixen: People who make such decisions and give themselves totally to another
person generally have more reasons than "he makes me wet".
All BDSM and certainly all TPE relationships are not sexually based.
*Skeeve: I have to agree with Vixen here. All BDSM is not sex and most power
exchanges are not sexual (imo). However, back to the point--Just because you
feel a decision is wrong or dangerous does not make it invalid.
Tom Robertson
WickdVixen wrote:
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote on Thu, Dec 11, 1997 >21:29 EST Message-id: <66q7iq$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>>I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There is no
>>such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to not have
>>any.
>I disagree. If a sub and a dom have the same limits, then all the fuss about
>setting and stating limits and pledging not to cross those lines doesn't need
>to happen.
>
>(I'll ignore the slam at TPE that I perceived there, and I'll not comment on
>the other rules in this post.)
>
>For example, my subs don't need to say "forced fem is a limit and intense
>humiliation is a limit" because they know I am not into those things. My
>bondage bunny sub who is into light sensation play doesn't need to say >"canes are a limit" because he knows that I don't enjoy hurting someone >who doesn't enjoy being hurt.
That the dom and the sub have roughly the same limits, as you have
described, is what I consider to be far more likely when people say
that their d/s relationship has no limits. There are all kinds of
conditions and limits on even the most extreme power exchange
possible, but they just don't appear until the desires of the dom and
the sub diverge.
Spyral Fox
In article <34a0c562....@news.mindspring.com>,
louis...@hotmail.com (louise) writes, in response to me
about rule #64 (whihc I won't reproduce, because it's been
in so many other opsts. If you don't know the details, kindly
use your newsreader or Deja News to review it:
=>While some people enjoy edge-play, and have "fuzzy" limits that can be
=>_pushed_, I read this as allowing *violation* of stated limits, as proof
=>that you *really* trust the Dom.
=
=The sense that i personally got out of the original post was that the
=slave would trust her Dom not to push any of her limits in such a way
=as to harm her, and that the slave was therefore giving him the
=decision of where to push and how hard.
:::Nod::: A perfectly acceptable alternate explanation. It all depends
on where one puts the emphasis. Either way, it does give the Dom
the ultimate power to decide which limits to push and when.
=>I have very clear limits, and most of them exist for good reasons.
=>I cannot imagine being around a Dom who could safely push many of
=>those limits outside of a fully equipped hospital.
=
=Oh, i interpreted it a little differently where it said in Rule #64
=above, that he could push "when he expects i am ready" meant she
=trusts him to judge when she is ready, and to not harm her...
I may be overly suspicious -- I think there are three types of
readiness: emotional, psychological, and physical. IMO, it is
often better to negotiate prior to moving a limit. The type of
negotiation which IMO should be done would vary dramatically
depending on the type limit, the reason for that limit, etc.
The explanation below -- remember, I was speaking
for myself alone above -- may clarify why I worded it as I
did.
I am lucky enough to be in a relationship with someone whose
limits mirror mine pretty closely, so there are only a few things
He's interested in that are beyond my limits. I trust that He won't
suddenly decide He wants me to do something sexual with my
dog, for example. He *could:* He has a mouth, he could issue
such an order, it's not a limit I have seen fit to publicize -- but
I just can't imagine it *happening*.
In fact, I can only think of two areas where I have stated limits.
I should mention -- again -- that these are due to personal anomolies,
and likely do not have anything aplication to many other than me.
They can be summarized as "no pain" and "no blood." If anyone
wants details, read on, if you're easily squicked skip to the following
paragraph, eh? I promise you'll only miss the supporting details.....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He *sometimes* want to really push my limits with pain tolerance,
where my acceptance of it would show I trust him to stop before
permanent damage hapens. Unfortunately, my pain threshold is
pretty high, and I generally feel pain only at the point where damage
*is* occurring when I'm at all sexually turned on. I've frequently damaged
myself even when I'm not hot & bothered, as when I slashed a toe
oen a few weeks ago on a metal ladder. I noticed when I started
to slide about on the tile floors a bit..... The other area is related
-- we toy with the idea of getting my nipples pierced. This, like any
other skin-breaking activities would need to be carefully monitored.
Partly because I don't heal wel (bleeding way the heck too much,
scarring more easily than I ought, and infecting very easily, even
though my immune system is otherwise normal), partly because of
physical problems I've had with my breasts themselves (three surgeries so
far), and partly because of a cardiac condition. If He ever decides
to do this, it will need to be arranged in advance, to ensure
prophylaxis, etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Outside of these areas, I have no need of stated limits,
nor do I have a safeword.But, remember, in *my* case,
a medical facility would be handy if he decided to break
the limits.
=>I am not comfortable
=>either with the idea of having a relationship where I, as a sub, have stated
=>limits that the Dom can violate because the Dom thinks it's OK and
=>I'm "ready" for it.
=
=Well, but your lifestyle is different from TPE and that's ok too, you
=know.
:::Nod::: TPE is a very seductive idea, but I know I would not do well
with it. I'm happy with my own, equally valid style.
=>Further, I don't think it matters psycholgically where
=>the limits are, if it's at dismemberment, blood sports, piercing, or even
=>the missionary position. One's limits are just as real to one no matter
=>where they are.
=
=i don't think i would personally submit to a Master who could ever
=feel i was ready for dismemberment, and so on. Masters have their own
=limits, too... That's one reason why those who prefer TPE or extreme
=D/s should (in my very strong opinion) be very very careful about who
=they select to do this with... It can take a very long time to find
=the right person for a TPE type relationship.
::::nother big nod:::: Even JJ admitted readily that TPE should
not be entered into lightly, that one should take your time &
get to know the other party. IMO, one should be even more
careful about TPE than marriage, because in a TPE relationship
the sub is honor-bound not to break the contract. It's like the
religious Jews. You can dissolve the relationship with a
contract (called a "_get_") but only the husband has the religious
"legal" authority to issue the _get_. Of course, others have been
known to aply pressure to get the _get_ dissolved. Come to think
of it, I suppose the _ketubah_ (marriage contract) has some
similarities to a slave contract.
But I digress.....
[.....snipping the last few points, because I think there isn't much more to
say about them.....]
=Thanks for such an interesting and thought provoking post, Spyral.
youre welcome. ;-)
SlackTop
jk writes:
>Just wanted to let people here know that the newest version of
>the 128 Basic slave Rules have finally been finished.
[...]
>And I would like to open a discussion on any issues any of you
>find with the rules set.
Well, jk, I've read over the rules, and the program you suggest for
learning and using them, and I've got a few thoughts. First, though,
I should mention to the other ssbb readers: *This post has no TPE
content* All I'm talking about are the 128 rules. Call me a hijacker
of threads if you will!
Okay. I looked 'em over and thought they were ... interesting. I was
in the same boat with Serion Ironcroft, who said,
>I think I'll just summarize in general by saying that your style and
>mine are considerably different.
And then LadyGold cheered me up by saying,
>I'm of the opinion that using lower case letters to refer to a
>submissive and capitals to refer to a Dominant is condescending.
[...]
>It was very hard for me to read through the rules because you
>consistently use this format.
But basically, I thought "Interesting". I always admire thoroughness
and the axiomatic approach, and it's nice to see what someone else has
done with the rules-based concept of BDSM (as opposed to the master's-
will-based concept.) The only particular quibbles I had were with
the *naming* of the set ... .
In the first place they really aren't "Rules", are they? More like
"Daily Affirmations", or some such thing. A rule, like "Don't pick
your nose", can be easily turned into an affirmation--"I shall not
pick my nose." But it doesn't always work out the other way around.
Your #52, for example, "i am my Master's greatest treasure." That's a
good thing for a slave to keep in mind; but what content can we give it
as a *rule*? Or #69, or #46--? #44--?
In the second place, calling them "Basic" rules might lead to some
confusion. I take it you mean basic as in "ready to be customized",
generic. But it can also mean "fundamental", unavoidable or
prerequisite ... my first reaction to your post was, "128 *basic*
rules? Hell, I used to think 'Safe, Sane, and Consensual' was a
mouthful! Wonder what the other 125 are?"
But those are small enough quibbles, on a par with pointing out that
the feminine hygiene device is not spelled "tampoon", as you have it
in #89. (Not unless they're making those sharper than they used to!)
I found it a thorough treatment of some interesting ideas, complete
with study guide, so I had my femsub read through it too, and report
her thoughts.
And that's when all hell broke loose.
I may as well explain, for the record, that my femsub is one of the
smartest people I know. Also my wife, mother of my child, etc. etc.
but that's not the point. The point is, she forms damned wise opinions
--and her opinion of the 128 Basic Slave Rules was rather *low*.
I regret to say, too, that her opinion of you, jk, as a person, was
not very complimentary. That's why I'm posting these remarks instead
of her ... I'm the phlegmatic one. I'm trying to turn her strong
negative reaction into something you can use positively. The main
thrust of her remarks was that you didn't seem like a BDSM'er at all,
but like a common chauvinist using BDSM as a cover story while pushing
fantasy-world male-supremacist relationships that could easily cross
the line into abuse.
Since you position these 128 rules as help for the novice female sub--
saying, for example,
"I offer these rules publicly [...] to females, who are sorting out
who they are, finally putting together the mysterious pieces,
fantasies and dreams of their past they didn't understand until now,
learning to take whatever steps that are necessary to get to where
they will feel more complete and whole, aware and alive inside and out,
open and free, 'at home'."
as well as,
"Consider these rules a part of what will become your crash course
about the Master/slave relationship [...] ."
--I think you might want to seriously consider these reactions from a
femsub who *was* a novice just four years ago. Perhaps your 20 years
of experience has made it harder to approach the inexperienced than
you thought. That is quite a gap to cross.
Her charge of chauvinism, I think, comes from the relative size of (a)
your teeny-tiny disclaimer that the rules could, "... provide a good
project for those submissive/slave males to adapt them towards their
relationship with their Dominatrix/Mistress ... ." and (b) the 30 or so
pages of Male-Me, female-i text that follow it. While it might be
interesting to see what a male sub could make of your references to
breasts, labia, hairstyles, high heels, "other females" and "tampoons",
it *might* also be less work for you to write a set of rules that was
fully general, instead of focusing so closely on hetero boy-top
relationships.
You're obviously a thorough, careful writer, and you mentioned that
you're working this material into a book--so use your experience to
*broaden* the audience. Generalize from what you know. Don't present
this as Human Nature Applied to the Female; try to position it as
Psalms for Pslaves, or some such thing. You'll piss off fewer women,
and maybe make a few bucks off the gay doms. --Just a thought.
But enough about you, jk; I'll try to stick to discussing the 128 rules
here. How could these possibly turn a relationship toward abuse? A
couple of ways. You're tossing this stuff into the hands of novice
doms as well as novice subs, and neither group really needs a farrago
of advanced, scene-sensitive ideas tossed at them under the label of
"Basic" real-life advice from an experienced switch. Safety warnings
can only overcome so many unrealistic expectations, after all.
I'm glad that you encourage negotiation and re-writing of the rules.
But pitching the distinction between "discipline" (which is subject to
safewords) and "punishment" (which is not) to novices is a *bad* idea,
in my femsub's opinion and in mine. Your #56 and #54 make this idea
clear, and many others refer to it. #64, which begins, "my limits do
not have to be respected ..." has been remarked on by others; as you
might imagine, I come down on the side of respecting the sub's limits.
nidea wrote:
>I like the 5-point system of will do/won't do/need changes [...]
And I like it too; but once you've introduced it, your complacency is
*chilling* when you say,
"Note: During your discussion with your Master you may find that more
than half of those you decide are 3's and 4's will turn into 1's, 2's
or 5's pending His interpretation and execution of those rules, no
matter how you rewrite them or if you decide to eliminate them. Part
of the process is to challenge how well you know your 'self' and your
Master, and how your state of mind changes in His presence."
Somehow the concept of negotiation seems pretty *thin*, the way you
explain it there ... "Tell the nice man what you absolutely won't do,
and if he pats you on the head, you may find yourself demanding it"?
Maybe it's just me, but I thought there might be a little more to it.
Rule #128 is an obvious mind-teaser. Again, more like a Daily
Affirmation than an actual rule, and more like a shuddery fantasy than
a blueprint for everyday life. Guns, knives, needles, blood, and
breath control are not to be laughed off with a couple warnings about
playing safe and getting consent.
But never mind that, let me get right down to Squick-o-Rama. In case
you were wondering where SlackTop and his femsub get off, here's our
stop: Rule #116, "i am free to leave my Master at any time without
the fear of permanently losing Him as my Master." And Note #5, "...
Always have time periods where you can drop out of submission, as if a
third person, to discuss what is occurring between you ... ."
Okay. Neither of those look squickful on their face. In fact, both
are intended as safety measures, I'm sure. Reassuring. Honest to god,
jk, I don't think *you're* abusive, nor an idiot! But I worry about
how these guidelines would work in everyday life. I really do worry.
There are several layers of protection in BDSM. Common ettiquette,
physical reactions, negotiated limits, safewords, calling the cops ... .
You've paid lip service to all of them, but you've also told the novice
subs and doms that all of them can be overridden. When the rules say
no ettiquette, no limits, no safewords, the slave is supposed to accept
that lack of protection. The *only* two responses you've left to her
for such edgy treatment, the only two you don't take back at some point
in the rules, are in Rule #116 and Note #5. When all other bonds of
trust are broken, she can (a) leave for a while; or (b) talk as a third
person.
These are not safety measures. Not in the absence of other--trustworthy
--safety measures. These are textbook recipes for an enduring, deeply
abusive relationship.
Maybe I've just been in too many damned trailer parks, but "Yew kin run
off back t' yer momma, Darlene ... I'll be waitin' on yuh here, when
yew git ready t' come back!" is not my idea of how to build a healthy
BDSM relationship in the absence of limits or safewords. It's more
like my idea of hell. I've seen too many women in those kinds of
relationships who went back, and went back, and got the living *shit*
knocked out of them every time, to think that this is an especially
progressive solution to the problem of "consensual nonconsensuality",
or whatever it's called.
But that's me. My femsub, on the other hand, takes a dim view of the
psychological processes set up by "talking as a third person"--like a
concerned but rational mere bystander--about violations of your limits,
safewords, body, psyche, what have you ... . I believe those
psychological processes are called "dissociation", and if I remember
right, they're not exactly looked on as an *optimal* coping strategy
either. Who needs adult-onset Multiple Personality Disorder?
So there's where we really squick out, jk: Where you left the rules
open enough that big-time experienced dom/mes could have a free hand,
the novice subs and doms both are being exposed to a hell of a lot
more Dionysian picture than they really need ... and the only out, for
a sub who tries your sort of slavery, is desertion or madness.
Doesn't sound so hot, that way. And I *know* that this wasn't the
intent of your words! I *know* that people with BDSM interests aren't
ipso facto abusive morons! (At least I didn't think I was ... .) But
it's not too hard for me to think of people I know who would take your
128 rules in that direction. So maybe try to spread the safety and
sanity warnings a little more evenly throughout the rules, instead of
in a separate section at the beginning--?
That or bill 'em up front as ideas for experienced subs to try at
play parties?
Failing that, go ahead and call the whole thing "The Most Elaborate
Personal Ad Ever Written" and get all the attention, with none of the
nitpicking from women, gays, lesbians, grammarians, subs, doms, or
*me*. Or my femsub.
--SlackTop
Domming with Dobbs since 1991
YourSAS
>From: louis...@hotmail.com (louise)
>Date: Fri, Dec 12, 1997 19:21 EST
>Message-id: <34a1d250....@news.mindspring.com>
>>completely throw away one's own judgment,
<snip>
>To say that someone who does D/s differently than you is abdicating
>their responsibility as a human being is unreasonably intolerant for
>this group, in my opinion.
I personally don't have a problem when someone else seems intolerant. That's
their problem, not mine.
>If anybody out there besides Skeeve and me agrees that this kind of
>bigotry doesn't help to provide a tolerant, accepting, ssb-b, and that
>therefore it is not to be silently condoned, please post saying that.
>Read the thread first, and see if you might possibly agree with me...
>and whether you want to let this pass uncommented.
>
>We need to have an ssb-b that is tolerant and open to all bdsm
>lifestyles, even extreme D/s, if we are to reach the full potential of
>this group, i believe.
By it's very nature, this ng *is* open to all bdsm lifestyles, IMO.
Whether or not I agree with Tom Robertson or you, louise, on this thread is
beside the point for me. I may or may not state my opinions, but I don't think
it's necessary to censure anyone else for stating theirs, whether or not it
comes across as intolerant. Personally, I think it's intolerant to demand that
everyone walk on eggs in how they do state their own opinions. It's a diverse
group. Big deal. We should feel secure enough in our own beliefs not to
demand that everyone express themselves in ways that we would like them to.
Just because I don't choose to respond to every post I either disagree with or
think is narrow minded doesn't imply (or shouldn't) that I "condone" it.
Disagree if you don't agree. What I do find unsupportive is your calling on
others to join you; to me, it has the appearance of "ganging up." Why should
one person's post threaten you in such a way? Lighten up.
jackie (you...@aol.com)
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather
straps."
-- Emo Phillips
Serion Ironcroft
On 13 Dec 1997 10:40:16 GMT, in message
<19971213104...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, slac...@aol.com
(SlackTop) wrote in part:
>Okay. I looked 'em over and thought they were ... interesting. I was
>in the same boat with Serion Ironcroft, who said,
>
>>I think I'll just summarize in general by saying that your style and
>>mine are considerably different.
A couple of people have asked me in background to articulate the
difference in style. I'm pushing business deadlines right now, and
don't have a lot of time, but perhaps can illustrate by pointing to my
own "Rules," which are available online at sparrow's "subNation" web
site: http://www.aadg.com/DsNET/subnation/index.html
I don't propose "Serion's Rules" as generally applicable, although
many folks have told me they consider them so. They are specific to
my style and address what I see as the basics of a day to day
relationship between myself and my submissive partners.
And for the record, for anyone who doesn't know, another of the
posters in this thread, LadyGold, is one of those partners. I own
LadyGold completely and she lives with me full-time under my rules.
I'm sure she will be happy to share her experience with them and
opinions about them if you ask.
Like SlackTop, I don't really see Johnathan's "128 basic rules" as
being very basic, or even particularly useful in defining/managing a
day-to-day relationship between a Dom/sub, Top/bottom, Master/slave.
I find myself agreeing with most of his comments.
To me the 128 rules seem intended principally to structure/suggest
certain behaviors that the sub/slave/bottom and the Dom/Master/Top
might find gratifying during limited encounters or scening. However,
I believe applying them in broad brush across a day-to-day partnering
relationship would be difficult to achieve consistently, and might be
decidedly unhealthy for the relationship over the long haul.
As an illustration, I would point to the following dialog elsewhere in
the thread between Skeeve and Tom Robertson about the required level
of obedience from a slave:
Skeeve: Are you saying that there are *no* individuals this loyal to
their master? Or is it the ones that *are* this loyal have not made a
*valid* choice?
Tom: I am saying that no individual should try to be completely loyal
to anyone who is fallible.
I don't believe Johnathan's 128 rules necessarily reflect the
consequences of Masterly fallibility or Domly poor judgment. I do
believe that most of us recognize that *wishing* for total obedience
and the consequence of actually *getting* it are two different things.
I believe abject obedience requires one person to set aside much of
the innate aspects of what makes human beings human - judgment and
self-preservation, for example. When one partner wields all the
judgment, I believe the partnership is probably diminished, not
enhanced. Assuming both participants are mentally competent, the risk
of misjudgment is likely greater with one decision maker than with
two.
Skeeve asks: What is the difference between that and the military
officer in charge of thermonuclear weapons ? Hasn't he or she
committed themselves to do exactly what you describe above but on a
much grander scale ?
Yes, no, perhaps. In Real Life, the military has already built in
mechanisms to reduce the effect of individual fallibility and to offer
opportunities for alternative judgment.
Who of us has not seen the movies/books depicting the *two* officers
(not one) faced with the awesome responsibility of deciding whether to
follow the order from a third person to commit to nuclear war.
Actually, in truth, the order to commit would itself only be the end
product of a long chain of advice and consideration by many people in
the chain of command.
I believe Skeeve's comparison, while pertinent, is overly simplistic.
In Real Life, wishfulness and fantasy are not enough. Carefully
constructed theory is not enough. Strongly held opinion is not
enough. In any system of agreed, committed behaviors between people,
whether on a grand scale or small, there have to be built-in
safeguards and escapes from absolutes.
As it happens, my own rules *require* my submissives to exercise their
own best judgment no matter what I might require them to do. I give
them an absolute right to question my instructions without any sort
of automatic retribution.
Why? Because I recognize my own fallibility and want to add *their*
perceptions, judgment and abilities to my own.
I don't want my submissive partner to blindly step into the street and
be injured because *I* said "Cross the street!" and didn't see the
truck coming. I want *her* to say, "No!" and stay put, preserving her
own health and my valuable property in the process. For that, she
will get warm hugs and kisses, not punishments.
I personally enjoy scening. I hung LadyGold and dingo from an x-frame
at the BR10 dungeon and happily flogged them for an hour. I've hung
my sub-friend beauty from the pipes at Hellfire Club in NYC and caned
her before an appreciative audience of about 20 or 30 people. I even
did a caning/paddling scene with her once for the cameras of a German
fetish magazine. All of this is great fun. We all had a good time.
I think lots of folks in our community see BDSM behaviors principally
as a means of having a good time and getting their rocks off, and
there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
But BDSM is not *only* scening, not *only* lifestyle, not *only* TPE,
not *only* inflicting/receiving pain, not *only* this or that. It can
be LMNOP, some or all of these, and probably even a bit more than this
or that.
For some folks, perhaps people searching for ways to *become* a slave
not just behave like one, scening is only part of the pattern. I
believe that for them, for safety and sanity, the Rules need to be
different from many/most of the 128 proposed in this thread.
Regards,
Serion
louise
The kind of attitude that you express in my opinion is not
constructive. Those who are so secure in their own beliefs that they
don't mind the attacks of bigots are secure enough that they can
discuss their bdsm with a random group of vanillas... i think this
group can have a much broader function than it now does if we learn to
come together to put an end to posts expressing bigotry, just as we
band together to eliminate spam.
We have all suffered from intolerance in the vanilla world, and i
think it's sad that some of those who have most suffered from this
feel they must mimic such an attitude and bring it to a kinky
newsgroup or gathering.
There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
Tom Robertson
louise wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
YourSAS
>From: louis...@hotmail.com (louise)
>Date: Sat, Dec 13, 1997 12:01 EST
<snipping most of everything, you can read the original thread for yourself>
I wrote, in part:
>>Just because I don't choose to respond to every post I either disagree with
>or
>>think is narrow minded doesn't imply (or shouldn't) that I "condone" it.
louise wrote in response:
>The kind of attitude that you express in my opinion is not
>constructive. Those who are so secure in their own beliefs that they
>don't mind the attacks of bigots are secure enough that they can
>discuss their bdsm with a random group of vanillas... i think this
>group can have a much broader function than it now does if we learn to
>come together to put an end to posts expressing bigotry, just as we
>band together to eliminate spam.
Well, I neither like attacks by bigots. My point was that we all take what we
want or need from various posts and opinions. Something doesn't particularly
need to be constructive to me personally for me to find it interesting, or for
me to learn more about various ideas, even when they don't agree with my own.
I guess I didn't see Tom's remarks as an attack, I just saw them as him
expressing his opinion. Not everyone who has a different point of view is a
bigot, at least not IMO. Bigotry can be a very subjective thing, and when you
talk about everyone banding together to end various types of posts, it just
seems a little disingenuous coming from someone who has repeatedly said that
she feels ganged up on. And who also has talked quite a bit about the
destructive nature of cliques.
Yes, I probably would feel secure talking about my beliefs to a random group of
vanillas, but that's just me. I don't suggest that anyone else ought to feel
comfortable doing so. The one thing I really am *secure* about regarding my
beliefs, is that they are always subject to change, either by new experiences
and/or keeping an open mind when hearing views that differ from my own.
>We have all suffered from intolerance in the vanilla world, and i
>think it's sad that some of those who have most suffered from this
>feel they must mimic such an attitude and bring it to a kinky
>newsgroup or gathering.
>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
I agree. So express your intolerance, as you have, and forgo calling everyone
to arms to chastize someone with whom you don't agree. Your doing so just
seems incongruous with previous comments you have made.
jackie (you...@aol.com)
who guesses she is being intolerant of louise's intolerance of
intolerance, which could very well be the pot calling the kettle
black. :)
Skeeve
>As an illustration, I would point to the following dialog elsewhere in
>the thread between Skeeve and Tom Robertson about the required level
>of obedience from a slave:
Neither one of us ever said that this was a 'required' obedience level. The
discussion was about whether or not the submissives choice of having this
level of obedience was 'valid'.
>Skeeve: Are you saying that there are *no* individuals this loyal to
>their master? Or is it the ones that *are* this loyal have not made a
>*valid* choice?
>
>Tom: I am saying that no individual should try to be completely loyal
>to anyone who is fallible.
>
>I don't believe Johnathan's 128 rules necessarily reflect the
>consequences of Masterly fallibility or Domly poor judgment. I do
>believe that most of us recognize that *wishing* for total obedience
>and the consequence of actually *getting* it are two different things.
But the consequences would depend on how the dom 'uses' this obedience. The
obedience by itself is not necessarily 'bad'.
>I believe abject obedience requires one person to set aside much of
>the innate aspects of what makes human beings human - judgment and
>self-preservation, for example. When one partner wields all the
>judgment, I believe the partnership is probably diminished, not
>enhanced. Assuming both participants are mentally competent, the risk
>of misjudgment is likely greater with one decision maker than with
>two.
Yes, the risks are higher. Just as the risks of driving are increased
when it rains. However, the decision to 'accept' this level of obedience,
adoration, devotion, or whatever you may call it rests with the dom. Just
because your sub wants to give you something doesn't mean you have to take it.
An example (using you and LadyGold and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that
you have instructed her to question any decisions that she thinks are 'wrong'.
This implies to me, that even if LadyGold wanted to be as obedient to you as
the hypothetical submissive that we have been discussing, 'you' have chosen
not to accept that level of obedience.
>Skeeve asks: What is the difference between that and the military
>officer in charge of thermonuclear weapons ? Hasn't he or she
>committed themselves to do exactly what you describe above but on a
>much grander scale ?
>Yes, no, perhaps. In Real Life, the military has already built in
>mechanisms to reduce the effect of individual fallibility and to offer
>opportunities for alternative judgment.
But the bottom line is that in this country, the ultimate decision to do this
rests with one man. In other countries, there may not even be this much
control.
>Who of us has not seen the movies/books depicting the *two* officers
>(not one) faced with the awesome responsibility of deciding whether to
>follow the order from a third person to commit to nuclear war.
>Actually, in truth, the order to commit would itself only be the end
>product of a long chain of advice and consideration by many people in
>the chain of command.
Unless you have been there, you can't realize that the movies and books make
good entertainment and drama, but have little correlation to the real world.
Having been a crewmember of a submarine carrying 16 of those packages of
instant urban renewal, I know that if any officer had tried to prevent the old
man's execution of a valid launch order, there would have been one very dead
officer. Or if the old man was to refuse to execute a valid lauch order, there
would be a very dead captain.
>I believe Skeeve's comparison, while pertinent, is overly simplistic.
>In Real Life, wishfulness and fantasy are not enough. Carefully
>constructed theory is not enough. Strongly held opinion is not
>enough. In any system of agreed, committed behaviors between people,
>whether on a grand scale or small, there have to be built-in
>safeguards and escapes from absolutes.
My comparison 'was' real life. Although overly simplistic it was meant to
counter the point that such dedication is 'invalid'. In the US, the president
cannot afford to simply 'wish' that his orders will be followed without
question--he must 'know' that they will.
Just because a person chooses to be this devoted does not invalidate their
decision.
>As it happens, my own rules *require* my submissives to exercise their
>own best judgment no matter what I might require them to do. I give
>them an absolute right to question my instructions without any sort
>of automatic retribution.
>
>Why? Because I recognize my own fallibility and want to add *their*
>perceptions, judgment and abilities to my own.
Which is good for 'your' relationships and may be good for others. But this
should not be a requirement of all relationships.
>I don't want my submissive partner to blindly step into the street and
>be injured because *I* said "Cross the street!" and didn't see the
>truck coming. I want *her* to say, "No!" and stay put, preserving her
>own health and my valuable property in the process. For that, she
>will get warm hugs and kisses, not punishments.
But if she didn't see the safe falling ... :)
There may have been a reason for you telling her to cross. 'She' may have not
had all of the information.
>But BDSM is not *only* scening, not *only* lifestyle, not *only* TPE,
>not *only* inflicting/receiving pain, not *only* this or that. It can
>be LMNOP, some or all of these, and probably even a bit more than this
>or that.
True. That, I think, is why we call it wiitwd. It's different for everyone and
you are constantly searching for one who feels like you do--who is compatible.
The true happiness comes when you find them.
>For some folks, perhaps people searching for ways to *become* a slave
>not just behave like one, scening is only part of the pattern. I
>believe that for them, for safety and sanity, the Rules need to be
>different from many/most of the 128 proposed in this thread.
I haven't read the other 127 rules. I have only been addressing this one. The
rules for a slave must be defined by the master/slave on an individual level.
The must be something that satisfies both the master's need to control and the
slave's need to submit. They must also be flexible. People grow, develop,
change ... and the same happens with relationships. The rules must be flexible
enough to take this into account.
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
>louise wrote:
>
>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>
>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
There are a lot of things that one can argueably be intolerant of. And yes
there *are* some relationships that are unsafe, insane, or non-consentual that
classify themselves as having no limits.
But what of those that *are* safe, sane, and consentual that also classify
themselves as having no limits?
There is a fine line that one must not cross here. What one couple does as
part of their relationship and makes *them* happy may be seen by someone on
the outside as *abuse*. How many 'vanilla' individuals would not say that
tying up your SO and flogging them is not abuse? The other day, I gave my
sweetie a spanking as punishment ... when she told her best friend about it,
she was shocked and asked her how she could 'tolerate' such behavior.
I agree that we should make things 'as safe as they can be', but the actual
level of risk that is acceptable is between the parties involved.
Sanity is a matter of perspective ... I am not trained to judge whether or not
someone is insane. Just because you think something is insane does not mean
that it is. Remember, a lot of wiitwd was at one time defined as mental
illness (insanity).
And as long as both parties in the relationship consent to it, who are we to
judge them?
louise
>louise wrote:
>
>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>
>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
Let me rephrase.... please substitute the following:
There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance of any bdsm
lifestyles by people in this newsgroup, in my opinion.
jk
thanks jackie for the comment made - seems some people never left activistism.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <34963ab9...@news.earthlink.net>,
ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft) wrote:
} I do have a minor quibble with Rule No. 50, to wit:
}
} "50. i choose willingly to be treated as my Master's property - as
} long as such treatment is safe and legal."
}
} I don't know of any place, at least in North America, where one human
} being treated as another's property is legal, which probably voids the
} rule.
}
} I would suggest rewriting the rule to read as follows:
}
} "50. i choose willingly to be treated as my Master's property -
} trusting that my Master will use me in a safe and humane way."
I'd quibble about your quibble. :)
The mental attitudes in a scene where a sub (me for example) is treated a
property, a chattel slave, by the Dom really turns me on when it works.
Of course such can not be legal realities (most places) but a scene or a
24/7 are less about legalities and more about peoples attitudes to and
relationships with others.
Some of the treatment dished out to subs and slaves while not damaging
would not be considered 'humane' by some laws and treaties.
The caveat about safe and legal treatment is a reasonable one. I'd hope
that any Dom would be safe, but WISTWD is not always going to be legal in
all places.
The contract I keep has a clause requiring the Master not to issue commands
that would bring either the M or the sub into conflict with the law or to
damage the M's reputation - sneaky that second bit, it means that I can be
treated like shit but not in front of an audience that would not understand
why the M is doing so. :)
I consent to being punished - something the case law in the UK post Spanner
probably says I cannot do. As long as what I and a Dom do doesn't actually
result in either of us comming to the attention of law enforcement agencies
we are within the terms of the rules proposed and that looks reasonable to
me.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <34aa512b....@NEWS.earthlink.net>,
lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net (LadyGold) wrote:
} I'm of the opinion that using lower case letters to refer to a
} submissive and capitals to refer to a Dominant is condescending.
} In my view, both the Dom and the sub are equal partners in
} building the relationship. It was very hard for me to read
} through the rules because you consistently use this format.
It's all a matter of taste really.
I'm (mostly) sub/slave but in writing here in an open forum I tend to
capitalise as I was taught in class - simply common language rules that I
hope ease understanding.
When someone has expressed a preference in personal names I try and
remember, but more often enough I forget in the flow of writing.
Communicationg with a Master however is different. The exercise of changing
the laguage forms for the specific purpose of emphasising the slave's
poisition vis a vis the Master is, for me, an excelent one. When collared I
am used to using l/c for references to slaves and capitalise references to
Masters and refereing myself only in the third person. It just happens to
be something that works for me and that said it seems natural enough to
carry the practice over into documents such as contracts and rules.
} Rule # 47. i will not hesitate in my obedience to my Master. On
} the surface, this is wonderful, but in fact, it is asking for
} trouble. My usual explanation is that if my Dom tells me to cross
} the street and doesn't see the truck coming, it is my
} responsibility to *disobey* him. I'll accept punishment gladly,
} if I misunderstand, but I think a sub must have the right to
} question a Dom's order if in their opinion there is something the
} Dom is not aware of.
I'd agree with you here. There should always be a let out that permits
questioning orders, a Dom will quickly realise if this questioning is
genuine or a prevarication in which case something deeper needs to be
tackled.
As for trucks, if I don't look before stepping into the road there's no one
to blame but myself. A dom who wants a *stupid* slave wouldn't have much
time for me, I'm supposed to be useful not a burden.
} I would advise any submissive presented with these rules to
} consider them very carefully. If you are uncomfortable with any
} of them, don't hesitate to discuss them. Doms are wonderful
} people but they aren't infallible and open and honest
} communication is the best foundation for any relationship.
Actually this is top notch advice for any rule set. Surely such
consideration is part of the necessary negotiation between the parties and
once agreed changes to the rule set adopted should also be subject to
negotiation. Even the most rigorous TPE regime still has the ultimate "no"
as an option albeit that that "no" might mean the end of the realtionship
with the concomitant burdens.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
} louise wrote:
}
} >There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
}
} How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
} which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
I'd be fairly intolerant of that.
But it pre-suposes a sub expressing no limits and a Dom with no limiting
concience or morality. While non consensual takes the whole thing out of
what I see as BDSM and into real rape, kidnapping and torture rather than
the scene play that turns someone on.
We all draw lines, BDSM'ers might draw them wider than most but anyone
working without any constraints at all would have gone farther than I can
cope with.
jk
news.seanet.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsrelay.netins.net!mr.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.c
a!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!wor
ldnet.att.net!newsadm
>From: mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson)
>Newsgroups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
>Subject: Re: The new 128 Basic slave Rules are finally released !
>Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 17:56:37 GMT
>Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
>Lines: 6
>Message-ID: <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>References: <34a1d250....@news.mindspring.com>
<19971213152...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
<34bdbd55....@news.mindspring.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.20.141
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/16.390
>Xref: news.seanet.com soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm:26532
>Status: N
>
>louise wrote:
>
>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>
>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
Perhaps you should go to a play party and talk with some couples in the M/s
oriented relationships than those in D/s. What may appear to you as unsafe
and such may indeed be more about trust than anything else. The no limits
rule holds true in most religions for example.
jk
In article <34c8f43a....@news.mindspring.com>,
louis...@hotmail.com (louise) wrote:
>
>>louise wrote:
>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>>
>>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
>
>Let me rephrase.... please substitute the following:
>
>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance of any bdsm
>lifestyles by people in this newsgroup, in my opinion.
Seems that some responses are not taking into consideration that there is alot
more going on between two people than what these posters are seeing or
imagining.
Spyral Fox
m & P
slac...@aol.com sez:
=How could these possibly turn a relationship toward abuse? A
=couple of ways. You're tossing this stuff into the hands of novice
=doms as well as novice subs, and neither group really needs a farrago
=of advanced, scene-sensitive ideas tossed at them under the label of
="Basic" real-life advice from an experienced switch. Safety warnings
=can only overcome so many unrealistic expectations, after all.
Yes, yes, yes!!!! Well said.
= Guns, knives, needles, blood, and
=breath control are not to be laughed off with a couple warnings about
=playing safe and getting consent.
Especially if the "consent" includes having the limits pushed
whenever the Dom thinks it's OK to do so "safely.
=Rule #116, "i am free to leave my Master at any time without
=the fear of permanently losing Him as my Master."
Huh, what? Maybe I should go actually read these things.
That sounds, pardon the expression, silly. Not to mention
unrealistic. If the slave or a sub walks out, that's generally
because things are -- if not actually OVER -- really badly
damaged.
= And Note #5, "...
=Always have time periods where you can drop out of submission, as if a
=third person, to discuss what is occurring between you ... ."
But only when the Dom/Master gives one permission to discuss things
and have an opinion about how one feels about them? I don't understand
how this can fit into the same context as the other rules.
Maybe I'll have time to go online and have a look after 12/26......
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>louise wrote:
>>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
>There are a lot of things that one can argueably be intolerant of. And yes
>there *are* some relationships that are unsafe, insane, or non-consentual >that classify themselves as having no limits.
>
>But what of those that *are* safe, sane, and consentual that also classify
>themselves as having no limits?
I would wonder what they meant by "no limits." If anyone can mean
anything by it, it is meaningless. I don't see how a relationship
with no limits could be limited to what is safe, sane, and consensual.
>Sanity is a matter of perspective ... I am not trained to judge whether or not
>someone is insane. Just because you think something is insane does not >mean that it is. Remember, a lot of wiitwd was at one time defined as >mental illness (insanity).
I agree. Anyone is capable of error in determining what is sane. I
regard the attempt to absolutely trust and/or be absolutely loyal to
another human being as unsafe and insane.
>And as long as both parties in the relationship consent to it, who are we to
>judge them?
I agree. The people involved are definitely generally in the best
position to know what is best in their relationship.
Tom Robertson
louise wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 17:56:37 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
>Robertson) wrote:
>
>>louise wrote:
>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>>
>>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
>
>Let me rephrase.... please substitute the following:
>
>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance of any bdsm
>lifestyles by people in this newsgroup, in my opinion.
I know of no examples which would cause me to disagree. Understanding
what "TPEers" mean by "total" (since it seems so obvious that it can't
be meant literally) is far more relevant than is the possibility of
anyone's lifestyle being intolerable.
Tom Robertson
Matthew Malthouse wrote:
>In article <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>
>} louise wrote:
>}
>} >There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>}
>} How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>} which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
>
>I'd be fairly intolerant of that.
>
>But it pre-suposes a sub expressing no limits and a Dom with no limiting
>concience or morality. While non consensual takes the whole thing out of
>what I see as BDSM and into real rape, kidnapping and torture rather than
>the scene play that turns someone on.
>
>We all draw lines, BDSM'ers might draw them wider than most but anyone
>working without any constraints at all would have gone farther than I can
>cope with.
Would you say that when "TPEers" say that their relationship has no
limits, they really mean within the framework of safe, sane, and
consensual, assuming that that is so commonly understood that it goes
without saying? That would make sense to me, but I recall suggesting
that to a "TPEer" and I was told that I was wrong, and that "TPE"
_literally_ means no limits, which left me more confused than ever.
MasterLen'sPammy
Johnathan,
Thank you for pointing me to your list of rules. I used it as an
exercise in submission, as you suggested. After reading and
rereading it, I edited out the parts that did not apply to the
relationship my Master and I have, and then changed the
wording in many places to be more pleasing to him and
the way he has chosen to express his mastery of me and
my sister subs.
I plan to use what is left (once my Master goes over it and
makes HIS changes) as a list of affirmations that I will read
over every morning, before I start my day. (or should I say
His day?)
Thank you for inspiring an exercise that has had much value
to me, and I hope will be of value to my Master and all of his
other slaves too!
In case you might be interested, I will copy here what I have
come up with, so far.
Pammy
***************************************
I will serve, obey and please my Master.
Above all else, my primary focus shall be to please my Master,
hoping that He finds me pleasing in all that I do, whether I am in
His presence or not.
My Master knows of my potential, learning more about me in each
day I am with Him. He knows what is best for me.
I will set a good example for other slaves who may be present
around me.
I worship my Master.
I worship my Master's body.
I trust my Master: His responsibility, His skills, His hunger and
needs, His concern for my safety, my emotional, psychological,
social, sexual, and physical health.
My body and mind are the property of my Master.
I will not hesitate when responding to my Master.
Focus is important to my growth.
I am always in submission to my Master whether He is present or not,
ready to please Him at anytime, in any place, under any circumstances,
regardless of who may be present.
All my choices shall be based upon pleasing my Master.
I shall wear the collar my Master gives me with pride for it signifies
His ownership of me and my devotion to Him.
My "place" is on my knees before my Master, for it is a privilege and
honor to be His slave.
My greatest satisfaction is knowing I have pleased my Master.
My greatest suffering is knowing Master is not pleased with me.
I fear no other power for my Master is always with me.
I will not hesitate in my obedience to my Master.
Whenever Master speaks, I am to immediately become silent
so I may be able to listen intensely to what He has to say.
Pleasing my Master is essential to me. I will take advantage
of every opportunity to do so.
I choose willingly to be my Master's property.
When Master feels I am ready, I shall receive His unique and
permanent mark of ownership upon my flesh.
I am my Master's treasure.
I will learn all the positions my Master wants to teach me,
and will be prepared to take such positions when required.
The safeword given to me by my Master can be spoken at any
time - even when I have been told to be silent. If I am not able
to verbalize it, my Master will show me how to express it.
I must be careful not to take more than I can handle, so that I
may be prepared over time to endure more for Him.
I realize Master may own more than one slave, if He so chooses,
My limits will be respected. My Master will take me past them
when He decides that I am ready.
I will work on building up my tolerances to the level my Master
desires, being careful not to push myself further or faster than
I am ready to endure for Him, so that I may be able to expand
my limitations and increase my value to Him.
It is important that I use all of my faculties including my creative
spirit to submit to my Master in a unique fashion personal to my
relationship with him, to become a devoted slave to a Master
who truly understands my needs in relationship to his own.
I give all that I am to my Master
The needs of my Master must always come before my own.
I must be attentive to the needs of my Master and always be ready
to respond to them to in the unique ways I have developed for Him.
I am allowed to suggest ways to further my training or his use of me.
I must always respond fully both physically and verbally to what
my Master does with me. The expressions of my emotions and my
physical responses are important to Him. I must never hold back
any part of their display, regardless of how intense they may be,
unless instructed to do so.
I am a sexual and sensual being.
I may, at times, offer various parts of my body to my Master in hopes
that He will take pleasure in using them in whatever ways He wishes.
I shall incorporate a sexual attitude and hunger in everything I do,
and be eager to sexually perform for my Master .
It is important for me to eat plenty of carbohydrates, proteins and
vitamins in the foods and fluids I choose to nourish my body and mind,
and to exercise my body regularly, to increase my physical strength,
to keep my limbs as flexible as possible, and to maintain or improve
my figure so I may be able to endure my Master's use of me however
intense and for however long a period is required by him and to be
free of physical limitations, to better please my Master.
I am proud to wear upon my body the marks given to me by my Master.
I will listen with a strong interest to whatever my Master has to say.
I shall gladly make my body available to my Master to be used as
furniture: my body positioned to decorate a room or a garden, a
footstool to rest his weary feet and legs upon, my backside as His
table to eat off, the cleavage of my breasts to hold his wine glass,
my palms to be used to hold a plate of His food, or my hands to
hold a book open for Him to read or a lamp to for Him to see.
I shall assist my Master in the setting of scenes and in the training
of other slaves.
I will periodically examine my whole life and look at how it has
changed as a result of my relationship to my Master. I will speak to
my Master about those areas where there have been improvements
and those areas where I feel uncomfortable, insecure, or unsure of
what direction I should take, or how I should behave.
I will suffer for my Master in ways that please Him.
I will not be passive in serving my Master. I will aggressively
participate in my exchange with Him.
I give to my Master my body, mind and spirit to use as he sees fit.
***********************************************
On Thu, 11 Dec 97 12:26:30 GMT, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jk) wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Just wanted to let people here know that the newest version of the 128 Basic
>slave Rules have finally been finished. They will be published in the Feb. 98
>issue of Secret Magazine and they presently can be found on the following 4
>websites:
>
>www.clarityconnet.com/webpages3/xtacy/rules2.htm
>www.iac.net/~llk/personal/slvrules.htm
>dc.jones.com/~thezoo/index.html
>members.tripod.com/~drkdesyre/index.htm
>
>I have given each of the owners of these sites permission to use the rules set
>on their websites. Yes, I wrote the rules set.
>
>And I would like to open a discussion on any issues any of you find with the
>rules set.
>
>thanx,
>
>Johnathan Kay
babalon
spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) wrote:
>=>I have very clear limits, and most of them exist for good reasons.
>=>I cannot imagine being around a Dom who could safely push many of
>=>those limits outside of a fully equipped hospital.
>=
>=Oh, i interpreted it a little differently where it said in Rule #64
>=above, that he could push "when he expects i am ready" meant she
>=trusts him to judge when she is ready, and to not harm her...
>I may be overly suspicious -- I think there are three types of
>readiness: emotional, psychological, and physical. IMO, it is
>often better to negotiate prior to moving a limit. The type of
>negotiation which IMO should be done would vary dramatically
>depending on the type limit, the reason for that limit, etc.
i really hate the confusion that's caused because we all use the word
"limit" to mean at least two separate things. imo,
there's the boundary or edge type limit which is pushable and usually
refers to squicks or intensity and such. "pushing the envelope" is
corporate speak or "pushing one's comfort zone" for the same thing.
for example, i have a squick about nipple torture and my Master knows
it. it's okay for him to push on this a bit because, while he knows he
might go over my "limit", if he does i'll safeword to let him know.
there's the hard limit, which is *not* (imo) pushable and which is
things that the sub would *not* remain in the relationship with the
Dom if sie crosses it. for example, one of ours is: no damage
requiring professional intervention. so, while putting nipple clamps
on me is likely to be over my "limits" of intensity, it would not
violate my "hard limits" because there is no actual damage.
i like to use the word edge, rather than "limit" for those things that
are pushable and limit for those "hard" limits that would be
considered violations of trust and likely result in ending the
relationship if pushed.
that way, at least i'm less confused... not that i expect everyone
else to agree with me, but it makes it easier if i remember that folks
use the word two ways (or more) and *ask* which meaning they intended.
>But I digress.....
>youre welcome. ;-)
*babalon*
*****************************************************************
for info about TIES, contact ti...@visi.com
for info about Lugh's Leather, contact lu...@visi.com
be sure to remove the spambuster from my "reply-to"
for junkmail/spam, *don't* contact me.
*****************************************************************
usenet quoting *ONLY*. not for reproduction without author's permission
babalon
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>Yes. Anyone who completely blindly follows the dictates of any other
>human being has made a wrong choice.
damn, those catholics following the dictates of the pope are just
plain WRONG. i knew it. i suppose we can send them all a letter that
Tom Robertson sez so. think it'll work?
>>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >mean it literally.
>I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
>themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
>human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
>bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
>Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
>object.
sorry hon - i made that pledge. i was a soldier. i pledged to follow
any lawful order. i pledged to protect the constitution which,
admittedly, was created by fellow fallible human beings. guess anyone
who was in the military and sacrifices themselves in the service of
their country is going to scare you, huh?
and better watch out for those police officers and firefighters too
while you're at it. after all, some of them are willing to jump off a
bridge too... and of course, all those followers of Ghandi were just
scarier than anything. and the kamikazi pilots in world war two...
>>>The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
>>>meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
>>>whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
>>>is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
>>What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges things
>>so that they cannot refuse a request?
>Then he or she has made probably the most dangerous mistake possible.
in your opinion.
>And for what? Sexual pleasure?
personal fulfillment. duty. honor. religious beliefs.
i can think of a number of things.
(besides, what's wrong with sexual pleasure being a reason unto
itself?)
mind you, i think that *most* folks i've met who claim "no limits"
simply haven't thought it through and when i pull out my portable
chainsaw rethink their position pretty quickly. hell, pulling out a
piercing needle can take care of many of them. faceslapping can do it
for others.
however, that doesn't mean that *no one* has the right to decide,
fully aware of what the potential consequences are, to choose a D/s
relationship with no limits. yes, they'd damn well better be careful
who they choose to trust with that responsibility, but if no one was
capable of handling that responsibility, no one should ever be a
parent.
think about this on the flip side -the person accepting that
responsibility - what do you think parents do every day of their
children's lives until those children are grown enough to be on their
own? they essentially are in a nosafeword, nolimits scene with those
children. yes, there are legal and societal safeguards, but it all
comes down to the personal responsibility, ethical and moral
standards, and competence of individual human beings to make the
toughest choices imaginable. if we allow human beings to take on the
awesome responsibility of raising children, shouldn't we also allow
them to take on the responsibiliity for an adult, who can at least
express their own point of view, their own ethical standards and
opinions for consideration before carrying out an order?
think about this. it may not be your kink (obviously) but if an
ethical, honorable, conscientious Dom were chosen by a sub and offered
submission with no limits, how is that invalid? yes, the sub might
make a mistake and choose poorly. but that can happen even when there
are stated limits. limits or no limits do not, in and of themselves,
define a valid or invalid D/s relationship. only the people themselves
can do that.
usenet quoting *ONLY*. not for reproduction without author's permission
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe (the risks are reasonably estimated, and have been reduced
as far as is consistent with achieving the effect sought)
Sane (each participant is sufficiently aware, and understands the
consequences (and potential consequences) of hir decisions)
Consensual (what happens is what all participants freely agreed to,
and is done pursuant to the wants of all the participants)
*************************************************************************
Tom Robertson
babalon wrote:
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>>Skeeve wrote:
>>>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >>>mean it literally.
>>I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
>>themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
>>human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
>>bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
>>Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
>>object.
>sorry hon - i made that pledge. i was a soldier. i pledged to follow
>any lawful order. i pledged to protect the constitution which,
>admittedly, was created by fellow fallible human beings. guess anyone
>who was in the military and sacrifices themselves in the service of
>their country is going to scare you, huh?
Yes, assuming they fit the description. Anyone who abandons the use
of their own judgment for the sake of absolute devotion to an outside
authority scares me.
>>And for what? Sexual pleasure?
>personal fulfillment. duty. honor. religious beliefs.
>i can think of a number of things.
>(besides, what's wrong with sexual pleasure being a reason unto
>itself?)
Sexual pleasure is worth being willing to jump off a bridge for?
>think about this. it may not be your kink (obviously) but if an
>ethical, honorable, conscientious Dom were chosen by a sub and offered
>submission with no limits, how is that invalid?
How are the ethics, honorableness, and conscientiousness of the dom
not limits? Being ethical, etc., means that one places certain limits
on what one is willing to do. It is contradictory for a sub to say "I
want submission without limits, but only to a dom who, according to my
judgment, is so honorable that he or she will limit him- or her-self
to only telling me certain things to do, which I have decided in
advance, and will not tell me to do other certain things, which I have
decided in advance." The validity of such a choice can't come into
question, since it's impossible. The only way to have submission
without limits is to be absolutely submissive to everyone, without
being selective at all. The mere choice of which dom to submit to
involves placing limits on one's submission. I'm not being intolerant
of a particular chosen lifestyle. I'm saying that it can't exist.
C. Konkel
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, babalon wrote:
>
> damn, those catholics following the dictates of the pope are just
> plain WRONG. i knew it. i suppose we can send them all a letter that
> Tom Robertson sez so. think it'll work?
Might be worth a shot ;)
>
> >>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >mean it literally.
>
> >I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
> >themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
> >human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
> >bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
> >Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
> >object.
>
> sorry hon - i made that pledge. i was a soldier. i pledged to follow
> any lawful order. i pledged to protect the constitution which,
> admittedly, was created by fellow fallible human beings. guess anyone
> who was in the military and sacrifices themselves in the service of
> their country is going to scare you, huh?
>
> and better watch out for those police officers and firefighters too
> while you're at it. after all, some of them are willing to jump off a
> bridge too... and of course, all those followers of Ghandi were just
> scarier than anything. and the kamikazi pilots in world war two...
>
hello! If a kamikazie pilot was aiming a plane at my ass, you bet yer arse
I'd be scared!
When I read your ellipses I see the next phrase as "or those Nazi's."
Hell, can anyone else see that the above paragraph clearly illustrates the
problems of the TPE question? Ghandi and his followers gave up their
choice in matters entirely, trusting their lives with the drivers of
trains, anonymous people they didn't know, and managed to affect a socail
change. OTOH, Nazi's allowed someone else's orders to blind them to the
injustice they did. Duh, Ghandi good, Hitler Bad.
If you begin a TPE with a nice Jewish art student and the sap drops out of
school and begins to lead a hate movement in a major world country, you
have a moral obligation to shove all his bondage gear in his orifices.
OTOH If you begin a TPE with a Mild mannered vegetarian, and he becomes
Mother Teressa with a whip, email me and tell me all the <gory> details.
We're gonna make up a new usenet rule right here. Anyone posting on a
thread comparing Nazi's to Ghandi gets a brownie shoved up their ass.
And if it even resembles a flame I'm not talking the chocolate kind a
brownie, I'm talking about the foot high Faerie that are related to
Pixies and Sprites!
CGK -- I think ya hear me knockin', I think I'm comin' in.
>
> >>>The term "reasonable limits" at least clarifies that it is
> >>>meant that the sub always retains the responsibility for deciding
> >>>whether or not what he or she is requested to do is reasonable, which
> >>>is required for submission to be a valid lifestyle choice.
>
> >>What if the sub choses not to keep this responsibility? Or arranges things
> >>so that they cannot refuse a request?
>
> >Then he or she has made probably the most dangerous mistake possible.
>
> in your opinion.
>
> >And for what? Sexual pleasure?
> personal fulfillment. duty. honor. religious beliefs.
> i can think of a number of things.
> (besides, what's wrong with sexual pleasure being a reason unto
> itself?)
>
> mind you, i think that *most* folks i've met who claim "no limits"
> simply haven't thought it through and when i pull out my portable
> chainsaw rethink their position pretty quickly. hell, pulling out a
> piercing needle can take care of many of them. faceslapping can do it
> for others.
>
> however, that doesn't mean that *no one* has the right to decide,
> fully aware of what the potential consequences are, to choose a D/s
> relationship with no limits. yes, they'd damn well better be careful
> who they choose to trust with that responsibility, but if no one was
> capable of handling that responsibility, no one should ever be a
> parent.
>
> think about this on the flip side -the person accepting that
> responsibility - what do you think parents do every day of their
> children's lives until those children are grown enough to be on their
> own? they essentially are in a nosafeword, nolimits scene with those
> children. yes, there are legal and societal safeguards, but it all
> comes down to the personal responsibility, ethical and moral
> standards, and competence of individual human beings to make the
> toughest choices imaginable. if we allow human beings to take on the
> awesome responsibility of raising children, shouldn't we also allow
> them to take on the responsibiliity for an adult, who can at least
> express their own point of view, their own ethical standards and
> opinions for consideration before carrying out an order?
>
> think about this. it may not be your kink (obviously) but if an
> ethical, honorable, conscientious Dom were chosen by a sub and offered
babalon
posted and cc'd.
pam...@ix.netcom.com (MasterLen'sPammy) wrote:
>Johnathan,
>Thank you for pointing me to your list of rules. I used it as an
>exercise in submission, as you suggested. After reading and
>rereading it, I edited out the parts that did not apply to the
>relationship my Master and I have, and then changed the
>wording in many places to be more pleasing to him and
>the way he has chosen to express his mastery of me and
>my sister subs.
<snip>
>In case you might be interested, I will copy here what I have
>come up with, so far.
<snip of Pammy's rules>
very well written. i like what you did with these. i especially like
how you've put things in regard to taking what you can but not more,
so that you can train yourself to endure more for your Master. what a
nice way of putting it.
thanks for posting these.
*babalon*
*****************************************************************
for info about TIES, contact ti...@visi.com
for info about Lugh's Leather, contact lu...@visi.com
be sure to remove the spambuster from my "reply-to"
for junkmail/spam, *don't* contact me.
*****************************************************************
reply posted and cc'd
Spyral Fox
M & P
In article <670a9p$3hr$2...@darla.visi.com>, bab...@visi.com (babalon)
writes, quoting me:
[...]
=>I may be overly suspicious -- I think there are three types of
=>readiness: emotional, psychological, and physical. IMO, it is
=>often better to negotiate prior to moving a limit. The type of
=>negotiation which IMO should be done would vary dramatically
=>depending on the type limit, the reason for that limit, etc.
=
=i really hate the confusion that's caused because we all use the word
="limit" to mean at least two separate things. imo,
=
=there's the boundary or edge type limit which is pushable and usually
=refers to squicks or intensity and such. "pushing the envelope" is
=corporate speak or "pushing one's comfort zone" for the same thing.
=for example, i have a squick about nipple torture and my Master knows
=it. it's okay for him to push on this a bit because, while he knows he
=might go over my "limit", if he does i'll safeword to let him know.
=
=there's the hard limit, which is *not* (imo) pushable and which is
=things that the sub would *not* remain in the relationship with the
=Dom if sie crosses it. for example, one of ours is: no damage
=requiring professional intervention. so, while putting nipple clamps
=on me is likely to be over my "limits" of intensity, it would not
=violate my "hard limits" because there is no actual damage.
[....]
That makes some sense, but I generally call things hard limits
or fuzzy limits and don't generally differentiate the two in the
type of damage that would be done. For example, I know
someone who has a hard limit about a certain sexual position
-- it brings flashbacks of a traumatic rape. While this doesn't
lead to physical damage, it's still a hard limit for hir. OTOH,
this same person has a fuzzy limit about caning -- sie doesn't
want physical damage, sie wants to be able to walk, sie doesn't
really *like* bruising, but if there is some bruising or stiffness,
it's OK because that's an area where sie like the drama of
edgeplay.
I would define the former as a hard limit, and the latter as
a fuzzy limit, even though the former is mental and the latter is
physical.
OTOH, I'm totally in agreement with the consequences of
pushing these limits being used in the definitions -- a fuzzy
limit, by its nature, can be pushed. Sometimes a safeword
will result, sometimes it won't, while abusing a hard limit
will generally mean that there is an instant loss of trust by
the sub, potentially leading to a lot more than a rift in the
lute.
Of course, this is why I have such a problem with rule #64
-- it is very tough to have the level of communication needed
for the Dom to simply decide which limits to push and when
and certainly not something a novicce Dom should be IMO
doing. There's certainly a large element of trust involved in a
situation where the slave says "these are my limits, and I
trust you to decide when I'm ready to be taken past them,"
and IMO it's more trust than one should simply give up to
another human at the beginning of a relationship.
Yet another way in which we all have a variety of outlooks
: -)
babalon
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>babalon wrote:
>>think about this. it may not be your kink (obviously) but if an
>>ethical, honorable, conscientious Dom were chosen by a sub and offered
>>submission with no limits, how is that invalid?
>How are the ethics, honorableness, and conscientiousness of the dom
>not limits? Being ethical, etc., means that one places certain limits
>on what one is willing to do. It is contradictory for a sub to say "I
>want submission without limits, but only to a dom who, according to my
>judgment, is so honorable that he or she will limit him- or her-self
>to only telling me certain things to do, which I have decided in
>advance, and will not tell me to do other certain things, which I have
>decided in advance."
nonsense. no more contradictory that spending a long time and effort
choosing a good, competent, ethical doctor who's values i agree with
and then trusting them to make the right choices in surgery or
childbirth. i'm not going to trust my medical care to just anyone, but
once i've chosen that individual, i trust them to care for me properly
- especially in those cases where i'm *not* coherent and capable of
caring for myself, such as surgery.
>The validity of such a choice can't come into
>question, since it's impossible. The only way to have submission
>without limits is to be absolutely submissive to everyone, without
>being selective at all. The mere choice of which dom to submit to
>involves placing limits on one's submission. I'm not being intolerant
>of a particular chosen lifestyle. I'm saying that it can't exist.
argument by definition.
all farmers are uneducated hicks.
well, so and so has been to college and is quite intelligent and
educated.
no, he doesn't count because he's really an agricultural engineer.
real farmers are uneducate hicks...
Tom, you've chosen to define this in a way that no other person i've
met or talked to does. the most intense heavy TPEer i've ever talked
to does *not* submit to everyone, anymore than any other submissive
(even if some chudwahs wanna believe that). yes, they have serious
qualification (limits if you must use that word) for who they will
choose to give their submission to, but once they've made that
commitment, they honestly do play without limits. i've met them. it's
not my kink, but they are honest people who've thought this through.
i repeat that *most* folks *I'VE* known who say "no limits" simply
haven't thought it through, but that doesn't have anything to do with
the folks who *have* thought it through and really do mean no limits
*IN THE RELATIONSHIP*.
i've yet to meet a TPEer who feels that "no limits" has anything to do
with choosing a Dom. in fact, they tend to be extremely careful about
choosing a Dom simply because they want someone who can accept that
level of submission and to whom they can give that level of trust.
sorry, Tom. in this case, not only do i disagree with you, i feel
you're wrong. by insisting on a spurious definition of TPE, you've
tried to define something out of existence. however, define all you
want - no one else follows your definition and i don't think anyone
ever has or will.
*babalon*
-----
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.
ccd and posted.
babalon
"C. Konkel" <cko...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, babalon wrote:
>> >>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >mean it literally.
>>
>> >I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
>> >themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
>> >human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
>> >bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
>> >Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
>> >object.
>>
>> sorry hon - i made that pledge. i was a soldier. i pledged to follow
>> any lawful order. i pledged to protect the constitution which,
>> admittedly, was created by fellow fallible human beings. guess anyone
>> who was in the military and sacrifices themselves in the service of
>> their country is going to scare you, huh?
>>
>> and better watch out for those police officers and firefighters too
>> while you're at it. after all, some of them are willing to jump off a
>> bridge too... and of course, all those followers of Ghandi were just
>> scarier than anything. and the kamikazi pilots in world war two...
>>
>hello! If a kamikazie pilot was aiming a plane at my ass, you bet yer arse
>I'd be scared!
well, hell, so would i - but the fact of their devotion to their
country doesn't make their choice invalid or scary. it might have
scary consequences...
>When I read your ellipses I see the next phrase as "or those Nazi's."
damn. i did not, did not, did not, intend that. that's not where i
wanted to go with this and, while i understand someone else going
there, it just ain't my thing.
>Hell, can anyone else see that the above paragraph clearly illustrates the
>problems of the TPE question? Ghandi and his followers gave up their
>choice in matters entirely, trusting their lives with the drivers of
>trains, anonymous people they didn't know, and managed to affect a socail
>change. OTOH, Nazi's allowed someone else's orders to blind them to the
>injustice they did. Duh, Ghandi good, Hitler Bad.
which is *why* it's so important to find a Dom (leader/cause/whatever)
who is conscientious, ethical and all that and for understanding thier
goals and worldview *BEFORE* making that commitment and giving that
submission.
>If you begin a TPE with a nice Jewish art student and the sap drops out of
>school and begins to lead a hate movement in a major world country, you
>have a moral obligation to shove all his bondage gear in his orifices.
i agree. but i hesitate to believe that the "nice Jewish art student"
didn't give clues to his worldview and ethical system that led him to
leading a hate movement. and if he was giving out those clues - then i
think it's irresponsible to commit to a TPE relationship with him.
>OTOH If you begin a TPE with a Mild mannered vegetarian, and he becomes
>Mother Teressa with a whip, email me and tell me all the <gory> details.
(AOL)
Me too!
(/AOL)
>We're gonna make up a new usenet rule right here. Anyone posting on a
>thread comparing Nazi's to Ghandi gets a brownie shoved up their ass.
um, i've heard of fudgepackers, but doncha think this is going a bit
far? ;)
and, i could always remind everyone that you started it. honestly -
the nazis were *not* in my mind last night. when you brought it up, my
first thought was, oh shit - where did *that* come from...
>And if it even resembles a flame I'm not talking the chocolate kind a
>brownie, I'm talking about the foot high Faerie that are related to
>Pixies and Sprites!
oooooh, now *that's* kinky! ;)
*babalon*
"I'm out of bed and dressed, What more do you want?"
----------------------
MasterLen'sPammy
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:43:36 GMT, bab...@visi.com (babalon) wrote:
>posted and cc'd.
>
>pam...@ix.netcom.com (MasterLen'sPammy) wrote:
>
>>Johnathan,
>
>>Thank you for pointing me to your list of rules. I used it as an
>>exercise in submission, as you suggested. After reading and
>>rereading it, I edited out the parts that did not apply to the
>>relationship my Master and I have, and then changed the
>>wording in many places to be more pleasing to him and
>>the way he has chosen to express his mastery of me and
>>my sister subs.
><snip>
>>In case you might be interested, I will copy here what I have
>>come up with, so far.
><snip of Pammy's rules>
>
>very well written. i like what you did with these. i especially like
>how you've put things in regard to taking what you can but not more,
>so that you can train yourself to endure more for your Master. what a
>nice way of putting it.
>
>thanks for posting these.
>
>*babalon*
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. All the ideas are Johnathans.
I just cut away a lot of the words to please my Master, who
likes everything quick and concise.
The one you liked the most came from his rule #55.
Pammy
Skeeve
In article <670gjn$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>babalon wrote:
>
>>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>
>>>Skeeve wrote:
>
>>>>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they
> >>>mean it literally.
>
>>>I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
>>>themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
>>>human being told them to scares me. Such misplaced attempts at the
>>>bliss of complete devotion frequently make the headlines (Waco,
>>>Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.). Devotion is only as valuable as its
>>>object.
>
>>sorry hon - i made that pledge. i was a soldier. i pledged to follow
>>any lawful order. i pledged to protect the constitution which,
>>admittedly, was created by fellow fallible human beings. guess anyone
>>who was in the military and sacrifices themselves in the service of
>>their country is going to scare you, huh?
>
>Yes, assuming they fit the description. Anyone who abandons the use
>of their own judgment for the sake of absolute devotion to an outside
>authority scares me.
>
I don't speak for anyone else here, but knowing those people are out there
ready to obey orders without question tends to give me a 'warm 'n fuzzy'
feeling. Helps me sleep at night knowing the privates don't debate the
generals.
>The only way to have submission
>without limits is to be absolutely submissive to everyone, without
>being selective at all.
How is this. Who to give your limits to is a matter of choice. Just like I
choose who to give respect, trust, and faith.
>The mere choice of which dom to submit to
>involves placing limits on one's submission.
How so?
> I'm saying that it can't exist.
Then all of those people who walk on to a bus with 10 or 20 pounds of
explosives and a detonator don't exist either ?
All those officers and men I served with protecting our country don't exist?
Neither do the cops? firefighters? priests?
I find that hard to believe.
Skeeve
>sorry, Tom. in this case, not only do i disagree with you, i feel
>you're wrong. by insisting on a spurious definition of TPE, you've
>tried to define something out of existence. however, define all you
>want - no one else follows your definition and i don't think anyone
>ever has or will.
Well said !
Skeeve
In article <671h1f$5vp$2...@darla.visi.com>, bab...@nospam.visi.com wrote:
>"C. Konkel" <cko...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, babalon wrote:
>>When I read your ellipses I see the next phrase as "or those Nazi's."
>
>damn. i did not, did not, did not, intend that. that's not where i
>wanted to go with this and, while i understand someone else going
>there, it just ain't my thing.
I didn't see it either, but it is a logical extension of your argument.
>>We're gonna make up a new usenet rule right here. Anyone posting on a
>>thread comparing Nazi's to Ghandi gets a brownie shoved up their ass.
>
>um, i've heard of fudgepackers, but doncha think this is going a bit
>far? ;)
Yes. So far, most of the discussion in this thread have been about extremes.
You can't get more extreme that Nazi's vs Ghandi.
WickdVixen
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote on Sat, Dec 13, 1997 12:56 EST in
Message-id: <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>
>louise wrote:
>
>>There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my opinion.
>
>How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
>which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
>
>
>
The concept of having no limits is not unsafe in itself. There is nothing
dangerous or harmful that occurs, no lightning bolt strikes at the moment you
utter the phrase "I have no limits".
What is not sane about knowing yourself well enough to state your preference
and look for a partner that you can trust to that degree? In fact, I would say
that it would take a fairly sane person to make those decisions.
And by the very definition, giving up your limits is consensual. After you
say to someone "I give you consent to do anything you choose to do to me", then
no act is non-consensual after that.
Vixen
(the wicked one)
=======================================
"Beat me", said the masochist. "No", said the sadist
=======================================
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
>>Sanity is a matter of perspective ... I am not trained to judge whether or not
>>someone is insane. Just because you think something is insane does not mean
>>that it is. Remember, a lot of wiitwd was at one time defined as mental
>>illness (insanity).
>
>I agree. Anyone is capable of error in determining what is sane. I
>regard the attempt to absolutely trust and/or be absolutely loyal to
>another human being as unsafe and insane.
Why ?
Midnight Writer
In article <66t3b2$l...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
TR > mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote, quoting
WV | WickdVixen
(and I get to argue with 'em both! Yum!)
(I'll try to get these attributions right...)
>TR > I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There
> > is no such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to
> > not have any.
Oh, yes there *is* such a thing, and there's nothing inherently bad or
good about it - it just is.
Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
- either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
WV | I disagree. If a sub and a dom have the same limits, then all the
| fuss about setting and stating limits and pledging not to cross
| those lines doesn't need to happen.
Without "all that fuss" about stating limits, how are any two people to
know what the others' limits are? Telepathy, perhaps?
WV | For example, my subs don't need to say "forced fem is a limit and
| intense humiliation is a limit" because they know I am not into
| those things. My bondage bunny sub who is into light sensation
| play doesn't need to say "canes are a limit" because he knows that
| I don't enjoy hurting someone who doesn't enjoy being hurt.
Actually, your "bondage bunny" sub *does* need to say that pain is a
limit, so that you know sie doesn't enjoy being hurt. How else could
you know? They probably didn't sit down and say the words "canes are a
limit because I don't enjoy painplay" - but they had to let you know
*somehow*, unless you're reliably telepathic.
TR > That the dom and the sub have roughly the same limits, as you have
> described, is what I consider to be far more likely when people say
> that their d/s relationship has no limits. There are all kinds of
> conditions and limits on even the most extreme power exchange
> possible, but they just don't appear until the desires of the dom
> and the sub diverge.
I'm afraid you just don't understand trust very well. If the dom and
sub have roughly the same limits, they'll be compatible in that, and
that's good. But very high levels of trust make more things possible.
If Babalon, to whom I am not submissive at all, woke me from a sound
sleep at 4:30am, telling me that the next-door neighbor was in the yard,
and she needed him shot *now*, no time to explain, here's the .44 - I'd
go do it. If she says something like that, I trust her to mean it quite
seriously, and to be handing a situation like that over to me in full
awareness of what I'd consider good reasons for shooting the neighbor.
If I called her on the phone, and explained that I needed the neighbor
shot, no time to explain, just go do it *now* - I know she'd try.
Having never been in a combat situation, it's impossible for her to know
if she could point a gun at someone and pull the trigger - but I know
she'd *try*. She trusts me that much.
We've both worked hard, and gone through several flavors of hell,
earning that trust from each other.
And we're not even TPE.
You're right, in that there are limits on what any individual will or
can do, and these limits are necessarily part of any D/s relationship,
no matter how intense. But TPE would entail a level of trust so intense
that a submissive would be willing to surrender total control of all
limits to the dominant. And the dominant would have to be self-assured
enough to accept total responsibility for the submissive and the
relationship itself. I don't know that I'll *ever* want that level of
responsibility - there's a certain attraction to the ability to be an
irresponsible lout every once in a while. But I can see that
neighborhood from here, and all I can do is aver that it does, indeed,
exist - and that the trust necessary to make it work leaves me in awe.
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
who wonders what kind of fun
we'll have when the 128 COBOL
slave rules come out...
(posted and emailed to all quoted)
--
I am living my life, a feat so difficult it has never been attempted before.
- Ashley Brilliant
| emd...@visi.com Mpls./St. Paul, MN, USA |
| TIES - Tremendously Intense Erotic Situations - BDSM Social organization |
| Lugh's Leather - toys for BDSM-oriented pervs - catalog available soon! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Janet W. Hardy
Midnight Writer wrote:
>
> In article <66t3b2$l...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
>
> TR > mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote, quoting
>
> WV | WickdVixen
>
> (and I get to argue with 'em both! Yum!)
>
> (I'll try to get these attributions right...)
>
> >TR > I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There
> > > is no such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to
> > > not have any.
>
> Oh, yes there *is* such a thing, and there's nothing inherently bad or
> good about it - it just is.
>
> Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
> - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
> that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
> the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
> nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
> don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
It isn't a matter of not liking it, it's a matter of not believing it.
In a so-called "no-safeword" scene, what happens when you say "I know I
said I wanted to do this, but I really can't handle it, and if you keep
on going this will be assault and I will file charges"? Or how about
"Maybe we better stop for a minute... I'm getting a shooting pain down
my left arm and I feel nauseated"?
As for the TPE relationship, the old tit-slicing arguments are getting
pretty tired. But I honestly don't believe there's a slave on the planet
who doesn't have *some* limits, whether s/he's encountered them or not.
Killing your mother? Letting your owner fuck your four-year-old?
Hmmm?...
What I *do* believe is that both the no-safeword scene and the TPE
relationship are collaborative in nature, with both partners working
together to support the belief that there's no way out and no backing
down. And since their reality is their own, that is indeed the case --
until such time as it isn't :/ .
Verdant
_____________________________________________________________________
GREENERY PRESS -- Reading for the Sexually Adventurous
toll-free 888/944-4434 http://www.bigrock.com/~greenery
_____________________________________________________________________
GeneK
Actually, from what we see on the news from time to time, there are
a few people who do exactly those things...but so far, I haven't seen
any reports that any of them were into bdsm...
GeneK
Midnight Writer
In article <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
TR > mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) blathered, IRT
l | louis...@hotmail.com (louise), who wrote:
|
| There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my
| opinion.
I concur - it's one of the few things I'm intolerant of, also. I guess
we'll have to except each other's intolerance of intolerance from the
lists of intolerance we're intolerant of.
TR > How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual
> lifestyles, which fall into the categories of relationships with
> "no limits?"
*Thank you*, Tom. That's an excellent example of the type of
intolerance I'm intolerant of. It's a damn shame that you weren't just
giving an example, but that you actually want people to *believe* this.
Relationships with no limits, commonly referred to as TPE or EEP
relationships, can indeed be unsafe, unsane, or nonconsensual - though
if they're nonconsensual, I don't consider them D/s relationships - for
me, non-con == abuse.
However, there are indeed relationships which are no-safeword, no-limit,
whatever the dom desires - which are safe, sane, entirely consensual,
and greatly enjoyed by all involved parties.
If they're not *your* kink, Tom - don't do one.
If you don't want *anyone* to do 'em - learn to live with
disappointment. Preferably, learn to live with disappointment quietly.
Who in the world led you to believe that you, with no experience of a
no-safeword, no-limits relationship, have any right or responsibility to
stand on your hind legs and tell other people about them? Is it the
voices that speak to you from your Rice Crispies (tm) that told you to
do this? Did your mommy insist on it? Who led you to believe that
you've got that kind of authority over anyone? Hell - what gave you the
idea that you were *capable*?
Are you truly so dim that you believe that you can make judgements about
something you know nothing of, apparently *desire* to know nothing of,
and have anybody actually listen to your opinion as if it mattered?
Go find another topic to beat the drum of. Presumably, there's
something related to BDSM that you actually know something about, and if
you can figure out what it is and discuss it, you might actually do
yourself and the newsgroup some good.
What you're doing on *this* topic is displaying YKINOKism - (Your Kink
Is Not OK-ism). That's an attitude that was quashed whenever it showed
up on alt.sex.bondage, and I have every intention of carrying that
tradition forward to s.s.b - and from the evidence, I'm far from being
the only one. You're outnumbered, and from all appearances, horribly
outgunned in this battle of wits. Retreat while you still have a chance
at garnering respect on another topic - you won't convince anyone on
this topic, and if you persist, you'll destroy any chance you'll have of
meaningful dialog here, on *any* topic. YKINOK is the *worst* attitude
you can display in this neighborhood. It's even worse than non-con, in
many eyes - because it's entirely non-con to judge another's chosen
lifestyle, and we've *all* got some idiot somewhere who will cheerfully
tell us all why we're horribly sick and demented about the whole BDSM
thing, and we come here to get away from that drivel. Bringing it here
will do you no good at all, unless you've got a bet about how many
killfiles you can get into.
No, I'm not a net-god who can command you - consider this forcefully-
phrased advice. But it's advice from someone who has been around a bit
longer than you, who has seen this all before, who will not quit, and
who has a *lot* more allies than you.
Trust me on this one.
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
who *really* misses Clay Bond
these days...
(posted and emailed to all quoted)
Consider this formal notification that I will cheerfully post any
amusing excerpts I want to from email on this subject from Tom Robertson
to this newsgroup. You have been warned - keep it public, because I
certainly will feel free to do so.
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of
the people I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Liz Day
Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>And when someone uses the term 'no limits', I always assume that they >>>mean it literally.
>
>>>I do, too, and the thought that some people would actually pledge
>>>themselves to jump off a bridge or kill their own mothers if another
>>>human being told them to scares me.
We had this similar argument about TPE etc earlier this year, didn't we?
Didn't we sort of go over it all then?
*sigh*
My memory isn't the best.
LD
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>I wrote:
>>>Sanity is a matter of perspective ... I am not trained to judge whether or >>>not someone is insane. Just because you think something is insane does >>>not mean that it is. Remember, a lot of wiitwd was at one time defined as >>>mental illness (insanity).
>>I agree. Anyone is capable of error in determining what is sane. I
>>regard the attempt to absolutely trust and/or be absolutely loyal to
>>another human being as unsafe and insane.
>Why ?
The families of those whom the followers of Charles Manson killed (or
of those who were touched by any of the countless tragedies caused by
such an immoral approach to life) could probably explain it a lot
better than I could.
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail
to LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:10:36 -0800, "Janet W. Hardy"
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>As for the TPE relationship, the old tit-slicing arguments are getting
>pretty tired. But I honestly don't believe there's a slave on the planet
>who doesn't have *some* limits, whether s/he's encountered them or not.
>Killing your mother? Letting your owner fuck your four-year-old?
>Hmmm?...
I think you've touched on an important concept here. We don't
always know all our limits. I'm not the product of childhood
sexual abuse, but I know lots of folks who are. For them, BDSM
can be like walking through a mine field. The most ordinary
things can trigger flashbacks. They may well have limits that
they don't even know they do until they bump up against them.
As for myself, I always thought bats were cute little furry mice
with wings until one got into my house and I found out I was
totally, irrationally, terrified by it. That's a bit unusual,
but the point is that sometimes you just don't know everything
about yourself and in that case, it seems to me very hard for
anyone to say "I have no limits".
~LG
--There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. Nelson Mandela 1994
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
>>>I agree. Anyone is capable of error in determining what is sane. I
>>>regard the attempt to absolutely trust and/or be absolutely loyal to
>>>another human being as unsafe and insane.
I wrote:
>>Why ?
Tom Robertson wrote:
>The families of those whom the followers of Charles Manson killed (or
>of those who were touched by any of the countless tragedies caused by
>such an immoral approach to life) could probably explain it a lot
>better than I could.
Just because an activity *can* have unpleasant results does not neccessarily
mean that it *will* have unpleasant results.
Flying an airplane could cause major casualties if you crash, so can driving a
car, skydiving, auto racing, attending sporting events, and a multitude of
others. Should these activities also be considered insane?
Tom Robertson
Midnight Writer wrote:
> Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
> - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
> that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
> the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
> nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
> don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
If not as a limit, how would you describe the unwillingness to kill
one's mother? Wishing limits into non-existence and/or ignoring them
won't eliminate them.
jk
>i like to use the word edge, rather than "limit" for those things that
>are pushable and limit for those "hard" limits that would be
>considered violations of trust and likely result in ending the
>relationship if pushed.
>
>that way, at least i'm less confused... not that i expect everyone
>else to agree with me, but it makes it easier if i remember that folks
>use the word two ways (or more) and *ask* which meaning they intended.
Edgeplay is just that - pushing on the edge, but more so, it too is going to
the other side of the wall of limitations, having to punch past the legion of
soldiers so to speak to where terror and fear are normally kept from us, but
when really faced with it we strive on it and realize that such edges are what
makes us alive - that we need it and that we need to visit there now and
again,if for only a moment, for any more would tear us a part and away from
the relationship we crave to be in. Limits are not about what you can't do,
its about when you can and how much and how often and how creative you can be
about creating ways to push on them to experience them. Perhaps our limits are
more of what we perceive and not what we know can be created to achieve them.
Limits should challenge us to find a safe and even legal way of experiencing
what we know may even be forbidden in the literal sense. And limits should not
always be only in certain areas - limits are there in any one direction - for
limits are only what we perceive because we have no other tools to see them in
any other way at the time, but when working with another person - we can see
that our limits are really only barriers that can be redefined, rebuilt and
pushed back.
jk
I don't know that I'll *ever* want that level of
>responsibility - there's a certain attraction to the ability to be an
>irresponsible lout every once in a while. But I can see that
>neighborhood from here, and all I can do is aver that it does, indeed,
>exist - and that the trust necessary to make it work leaves me in awe.
Perhaps that's the key - the attraction towards a relationship where there are
no limits whatsoever, and believing that is possible is what drives some D/s
and especially M/s relationships. It was asked once of a bdsm education and
discussion group - of how far would bdsm'rs go if there were no laws. Think
about it. And think about this: if you say you have no limits - how far will
the relationship go anyway?
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>I agree. Anyone is capable of error in determining what is sane. I
>>regard the attempt to absolutely trust and/or be absolutely loyal to
>>another human being as unsafe and insane.
>>I wrote:
>>>Why ?
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>The families of those whom the followers of Charles Manson killed (or
>>of those who were touched by any of the countless tragedies caused by
>>such an immoral approach to life) could probably explain it a lot
>>better than I could.
>Just because an activity *can* have unpleasant results does not >neccessarily mean that it *will* have unpleasant results.
I agree.
>Flying an airplane could cause major casualties if you crash, so can driving >a car, skydiving, auto racing, attending sporting events, and a multitude of
>others. Should these activities also be considered insane?
It depends on the situation. In some cases, yes. Absolute trust and
devotion to another human being isn't in that category, though, since
it must disregard the situation. Are you saying that being willing to
drink Drano if one's dom told one to is a good thing? Is there a
human being alive who should be trusted that much?
Arrow Blue
jk wrote:
>
> I don't know that I'll *ever* want that level of
> >responsibility - there's a certain attraction to the ability to be an
> >irresponsible lout every once in a while. But I can see that
> >neighborhood from here, and all I can do is aver that it does, indeed,
> >exist - and that the trust necessary to make it work leaves me in awe.
>
> no limits whatsoever, and believing that is possible is what drives some D/s
> and especially M/s relationships. It was asked once of a bdsm education and
> discussion group - of how far would bdsm'rs go if there were no laws. Think
> about it. And think about this: if you say you have no limits - how far will
> the relationship go anyway?
Now that's a silly thing to ask - how far would bdsm'rs go if there were
no laws.
That's like asking how far a redhead would go if there were no laws.
There's going to be no consistency within the group as to what they
would do. The person will do what his or her morals (or lack of) dictate
- whether or not he gets off on whipping someone or just likes the idea
of picking up a new car without that pesky payment plan.
Arrow
louise
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:41:38 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson) wrote:
>Skeeve wrote:
>>Flying an airplane could cause major casualties if you crash, so can driving
>a car, skydiving, auto racing, attending sporting events, and a multitude of
>>others. Should these activities also be considered insane?
>
>It depends on the situation. In some cases, yes. Absolute trust and
>devotion to another human being isn't in that category, though, since
>it must disregard the situation. Are you saying that being willing to
>drink Drano if one's dom told one to is a good thing? Is there a
>human being alive who should be trusted that much?
Are you saying that the people in your life are so confusing or
hostile to you that you could not predict without a doubt whether they
were capable of asking you to drink Drano or not? Seems to me that
perhaps your questions might be considered by some of us to be
irrelevant to real life extreme D/s, IMO.
If you feel this way about someone, i suggest you don't submit to that
person or allow yourself to be alone with that person any context.
--
louise louis...@hotmail.com
lou...@usa.net
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities.
-- H. Melville, 1851
Skeeve
Tom Robertson wrote:
>Are you saying that being willing to
>drink Drano if one's dom told one to is a good thing? Is there a
>human being alive who should be trusted that much?
The magic word in the above statement is 'willing' to which I would answer
yes.
To be willing to drink drano is something totally different from the actual
drinking of the drano.
As for your second question, my answer is 'it depends'.
For you the answer is obviously no.
For me, the answer is probably yes, but I haven't found them yet ... you can
chalk that up as a definite maybe.
For others, I'm sure that there is at least one person out there (and I don't
know who it is) who would answer definitely yes because they have found them
and *do* trust them that much.
Shunyata
Spam sucks. To reply by e-mail, pull the plug from my return
address.
Arrow says:
>jk wrote:
>> Perhaps that's the key - the attraction towards a relationship
where there are
>> no limits whatsoever, and believing that is possible is what
drives some D/s
>>and especially M/s relationships. It was asked once of a bdsm
education and
>> discussion group - of how far would bdsm'rs go if there were no
laws. Think
>>about it. And think about this: if you say you have no limits -
how far will
>>the relationship go anyway?
>Now that's a silly thing to ask - how far would bdsm'rs go if
there were
>no laws.
>That's like asking how far a redhead would go if there were no
laws.
>There's going to be no consistency within the group as to what
they
>would do. The person will do what his or her morals (or lack of)
dictate
>- whether or not he gets off on whipping someone or just likes
the idea
>of picking up a new car without that pesky payment plan.
That's an awfully strong statement, and I disagree. Whether or
not it's a silly question depends upon how you interepret the
question. When I read that question, I see it as simply asking,
"What limits would exist in your ideal D/s relationship if there
were no limits imposed by law?"
Limits can cover a rather broad spectrum - they don't just cover
how much actual physical harm or risk is acceptable, but, for
example, how much clothing a sub will wear in public. Many of the
limits that we observe within our relationships *are* limits that
are imposed upon us by the legal and social structure of the larger
community on which we live. How many of us fantasize, for instance,
about being led naked on a leash on a public street? Quite a few of
us; but only those of us who also fantasize about being the lead
story on the 10:00 news and losing our jobs actually indulge that
fantasy - generally speaking.
And as for there being no consistency within the group on this
matter - well, isn't that the point of a discussion forum? :-)
Be well, everyone.
Shunyata, the Poster Formerly Known as Northern Son
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that
I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Spyral Fox
In article <674t26$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson) writes:
=Midnight Writer wrote:
=
=> Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
=> - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
=> that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
=> the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
=> nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
=> don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
=
=If not as a limit, how would you describe the unwillingness to kill
=one's mother? Wishing limits into non-existence and/or ignoring them
=won't eliminate them.
They don't need to be non-existant, they simply aren't relevant
most of the time. I'm not going to kill my mother. So you could call it
a limit. OTOH, my Owner is not going to ask me to kill my mom
unless He's barking mad -- and if He were, and I was not, you can expect
that I'd both not obey Him and would seek professional treatment
for Him. Of course, if I'm also nutso, I might not *have* any limits.
The same is true for many more less extreme cases. I don't need
or use a safeword with my Owner, and I don't have to continually
restate limits. He has limits that match mine -- He doesn't
have any interest in tying me down and bringing in the proverbial
German Shepherd Dog, or any interest in urinating on me or
defacating into my mouth. He doesn't want me to end up dead
or in the hosiptal, or even badly bruised.
Likewise, the existance of various laws against certain things doesn't
bother me, because neither of us have any intention of breaking them.
Within our mutual limits, there is no need for concern, and the
fact that there are limits is not relevant. It's similar to the fact
that you can't dive into the sea beyond a certain depth or climb
mountains above a certain height without breathing gear -- if
you have no intention of diving so dee or climbing so high, it
doesn't matter that there are biological limits to where you can
go and still breathe.
So, end result I *am* in a no-safeword power-exchange relationship,
and it has lasted for about 3 1/2 years so far, and I'm not worried that
He'll tell me to jump off the proverbial skyscraper, slice up my
proverbial breasts, kill my proverbial mother, or drink the proverbial
Drano.
take care,
- - -Spyral Fox spyr...@aol.com
"What makes you think I'd do as you say? Ani l'dodi."
My Owner is: lordr...@aol.com
San Diego Info & Links: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Next Munches: 1/27, 2/8
WickdVixen
emd...@visi.com (Midnight Writer) wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 1997 16:44 EST in
<TTal0w/MGeSE...@visi.com>
>
>In article <66t3b2$l...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
>
>TR > mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote, quoting
>
>WV | WickdVixen
>
>(and I get to argue with 'em both! Yum!)
>
>(I'll try to get these attributions right...)
>
>
>>TR > I agree. Rule # 64 sounds like what a "TPEer" would say. There
>> > is no such thing as a sub without limits, and it's wrong to try to
>> > not have any.
>
>Oh, yes there *is* such a thing, and there's nothing inherently bad or
>good about it - it just is.
>
>Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
>- either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
>that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
>the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
>nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
>don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
>
>WV | I disagree. If a sub and a dom have the same limits, then all the
> | fuss about setting and stating limits and pledging not to cross
> | those lines doesn't need to happen.
>
>Without "all that fuss" about stating limits, how are any two people to
>know what the others' limits are? Telepathy, perhaps?
>
no, by talking about it and knowing the other person. We focus more on the
things we want and like rather than what we don't. How can new folks talk
about their limits when they don't even know what someone might want to try to
do to them?
>WV | For example, my subs don't need to say "forced fem is a limit and
> | intense humiliation is a limit" because they know I am not into
> | those things. My bondage bunny sub who is into light sensation
> | play doesn't need to say "canes are a limit" because he knows that
> | I don't enjoy hurting someone who doesn't enjoy being hurt.
>
>Actually, your "bondage bunny" sub *does* need to say that pain is a
>limit, so that you know sie doesn't enjoy being hurt. How else could
>you know? They probably didn't sit down and say the words "canes are a
>limit because I don't enjoy painplay" - but they had to let you know
>*somehow*, unless you're reliably telepathic.
>
Yes, it came from watching how he reacted to things I tried with him, and from
talking about the scene afterwards. It came from learning about him and what
makes him tick. Telepathic, no, empathic, probably. He had no idea if he
would like pain or not, in fact he is one of those rare folks who never knew
this stuff existed until he stumbled into a chatroom online, so it was all
experimentation with him. The way that I describe it is that I will not ask
him to take any more than he can handle, and he trusts me to know what he can
handle without destroying himself or his confidence in me. Other than that,
there are no stated limits and nothing specifically talked about.
For example, I did a cutting on my other sub. I said later to my bondage
bunny "you know I could do that to you too" and he said "yes Ma'am". He would
accept it from me, knowing that I would not attempt it if I didn't think he
could handle it. (he also told me that I could cut my whole name in him
because he would probably pass out as soon as he saw the blade on his skin).
It is not a limit, he is not saying "cutting is a limit, do not cut me", he is
giving me information on what he thinks about it and I use that information to
decide what to do.
>TR > That the dom and the sub have roughly the same limits, as you have
> > described, is what I consider to be far more likely when people say
> > that their d/s relationship has no limits. There are all kinds of
> > conditions and limits on even the most extreme power exchange
> > possible, but they just don't appear until the desires of the dom
> > and the sub diverge.
>
>I'm afraid you just don't understand trust very well. If the dom and
>sub have roughly the same limits, they'll be compatible in that, and
>that's good. But very high levels of trust make more things possible.
>
>If Babalon, to whom I am not submissive at all, woke me from a sound
>sleep at 4:30am, telling me that the next-door neighbor was in the yard,
>and she needed him shot *now*, no time to explain, here's the .44 - I'd
>go do it. If she says something like that, I trust her to mean it quite
>seriously, and to be handing a situation like that over to me in full
>awareness of what I'd consider good reasons for shooting the neighbor.
>
>If I called her on the phone, and explained that I needed the neighbor
>shot, no time to explain, just go do it *now* - I know she'd try.
>Having never been in a combat situation, it's impossible for her to know
>if she could point a gun at someone and pull the trigger - but I know
>she'd *try*. She trusts me that much.
>
>We've both worked hard, and gone through several flavors of hell,
>earning that trust from each other.
>
I understand what you are saying about trust. It certainly goes both ways and
it goes way beyond any sort of D/s interaction. I think that you and I are
saying the same thing here. Because my subs trust me and I trust them, we do
not need to list certain activities as being "off limits".
>And we're not even TPE.
>
>You're right, in that there are limits on what any individual will or
>can do, and these limits are necessarily part of any D/s relationship,
>no matter how intense. But TPE would entail a level of trust so intense
>that a submissive would be willing to surrender total control of all
>limits to the dominant. And the dominant would have to be self-assured
>enough to accept total responsibility for the submissive and the
>relationship itself. I don't know that I'll *ever* want that level of
>responsibility - there's a certain attraction to the ability to be an
>irresponsible lout every once in a while. But I can see that
>neighborhood from here, and all I can do is aver that it does, indeed,
>exist - and that the trust necessary to make it work leaves me in awe.
>
I think that the situation you described above with the guns and neighbors is
very close to that sort of trust. You are saying that she would hesitate only
long enough to assure herself that you were in command of all your mental
faculties and then obey, and you would do the same for her, out of trust.
Isn't the type of TPE that you describe just one step from that, i.e., leaving
out the quick "reality check" and just blindly obeying?
> -=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
> who wonders what kind of fun
> we'll have when the 128 COBOL
> slave rules come out...
>(posted and emailed to all quoted)
>--
I have seen Cinderella written in COBOL, so why not the slave rules?
IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
WickdVixen
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 1997 22:37 EST in
<674t26$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Midnight Writer wrote:
>
>> Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
>> - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
>> that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
>> the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
>> nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
>> don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
>
How would you describe people who have no such limit? Wishing them into
non-existence and/or ignoring them won't eliminate them either. You seem to
think that finding one person who fits your criteria means that all people fit
your criteria. It doesn't work that way.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <66vgbd$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse wrote:
}
} >In article <66ui98$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
} >mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
} >
} >} louise wrote:
} >}
} >} >There is nothing wrong with intolerance of intolerance, in my
opinion.
} >}
} >} How about intolerance of unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual lifestyles,
} >} which fall into the categories of relationships with "no limits?"
} >
} >I'd be fairly intolerant of that.
} >
} >But it pre-suposes a sub expressing no limits and a Dom with no limiting
} >concience or morality. While non consensual takes the whole thing out of
} >what I see as BDSM and into real rape, kidnapping and torture rather
than
} >the scene play that turns someone on.
} >
} >We all draw lines, BDSM'ers might draw them wider than most but anyone
} >working without any constraints at all would have gone farther than I
can
} >cope with.
}
} Would you say that when "TPEers" say that their relationship has no
} limits, they really mean within the framework of safe, sane, and
} consensual, assuming that that is so commonly understood that it goes
} without saying? That would make sense to me, but I recall suggesting
} that to a "TPEer" and I was told that I was wrong, and that "TPE"
} _literally_ means no limits, which left me more confused than ever.
I fantasise about TPE that's truely non consensual but I have no desire to
play/live in that manner so I can't speak from experience.
In reading others on the subject I have received the impression that TPE
doesn't assume an absence of limits but the subs reliance upon the
Dom(mes)'s limits.
If that's accurate then it implies a subs trust of hir dom(mes) willingness
to remain "safe and sane" and take responsibility for assessing matters of
consent.
If I'm seriously mistaken I await correction :)
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/index.html
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Skeeve
In article <01bd0a30$7e3d5aa0$76010bce@default>, "Shunyata"
<shun...@pclink.plugcom> wrote:
> And as for there being no consistency within the group on this
>matter - well, isn't that the point of a discussion forum? :-)
Yep, sure is (imo) !
> Be well, everyone.
You too.
Skeeve
Vixen
(the wicked one) wrote:
>I have seen Cinderella written in COBOL, so why not the slave rules?
>
>IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
>THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
ROFLMAO! (and damn it's hard to get coffee stains off the monitor)
What next ... C ?
<imagining some really bizzarre subroutines>
Kirk Job Sluder
wickd...@aol.com (WickdVixen) writes:
> no, by talking about it and knowing the other person. We focus more on the
> things we want and like rather than what we don't. How can new folks talk
> about their limits when they don't even know what someone might want to try to
> do to them?
I'm not sure how this different from a limits-based discussion. Half
of negotiating with my mistress consisted of a lot of what ifs.
"How do you feel about this?"
"I love it."
"Ok, how do you feel about this?"
"I've never really thought about it."
"Ok, what if . . . <long scenario>"
"<melts> mmm, that would work."
> For example, I did a cutting on my other sub. I said later to my bondage
> bunny "you know I could do that to you too" and he said "yes Ma'am". He would
> accept it from me, knowing that I would not attempt it if I didn't think he
> could handle it. (he also told me that I could cut my whole name in him
> because he would probably pass out as soon as he saw the blade on his skin).
> It is not a limit, he is not saying "cutting is a limit, do not cut me", he is
> giving me information on what he thinks about it and I use that information to
> decide what to do.
So would you say that the difference between "limits-based" discussion
and your method of interactions is that a "limits-based" discussion is
explicit while in your method the limits are defined implicitly?
I suspect that part of this conflict comes from a communication
problems and some possibly flawed assumptions about what the other
side is or is not doing.
> IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
> THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
>
> Vixen
> (the wicked one)
> =======================================
> "Beat me", said the masochist. "No", said the sadist
> =======================================
--
Kirk Job Sluder (csl...@indiana.edu)
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
"Al Pacino is the Robert DeNiro of acting." -Charlie the Australopithecene
Midnight Writer
In article <3495D5...@earthlink.net>,
JH > "Janet W. Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> writes, IRT
MW | Midnight Writer:
| [snip]
| Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power
| exchange - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a
| relationship that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen
| and participated in the one, and heard reliable reports of the
| other. Wishing it into nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may
| make you feel happier, but don't expect anyone else to ignore it to
| make *you* feel safer.
JH > It isn't a matter of not liking it, it's a matter of not believing
> it.
S'okay - I've got no right to insist that you believe something that you
don't want to believe. OTOH, it's awfully rude, at best, to insist that
another's belief about their lifestyle is invalid. Ferinstance, I know
a guy who simply does not believe that anyone can possibly enjoy being
flogged, unless the flogging is gentle enough to be painless. That's
okay, too - I don't need for him to believe otherwise. But I won't sit
idly by and watch him tell my painslut that she's deluded, junior.
(I'm getting this odd sensation of deja vu - good to see you again,
Verdant)
JH > In a so-called "no-safeword" scene, what happens when you say "I
> know I said I wanted to do this, but I really can't handle it, and
> if you keep on going this will be assault and I will file charges"?
> Or how about "Maybe we better stop for a minute... I'm getting a
> shooting pain down my left arm and I feel nauseated"?
Easy - whatever the dom *wants* to happen. (Which is what happens in
just about any scene in which the sub is restrained and helpless, come
to think of it.)
In your first example ("I withdraw consent"), if I were domming someone
who did that, I'd stop immediately - and refuse to have anything more to
do with someone who promises what they cannot deliver. Honor and
integrity are kind of important to me.
Your second example would lead me to check for serious medical
difficulties - I don't like to break my toys. If it were simple
discomfort, however, I'm just as likely to say "Tough - deal" as allow
the sub a rest period - it would depend on my mood.
Not that I do no-safeword scenes frequently, you understand. But I
understand how they work.
If I *really* wanted to get over my squick about, oh, Wonder Bread -
and found a dom who was interested in such a scene, and agreed to a
no-safeword scene in which I'd be force-fed Wonder Bread until I'd eaten
twelve loaves, and decided half-way through that this was *really* too
much, and screamed, begged, pleaded to be released - and the dom stopped
the scene - I'd be disappointed, and mistrustful of that dom in the
future.
That I'm likely to wimp out in the middle and try to bail out, but in
general, don't *want* to be allowed to bail out, is the whole point of
such a no-safeword scene. A dom who lets me down, after clear
agreement, and *lets* me bail out is, IMO, violating a clear agreement,
and cannot be trusted to stand up to their agreements.
Now, this isn't the sort of thing that people should do lightly, without
lots of soul-searching, knowing the dom *damn* well, and developing huge
amounts of trust (though if they really wanna, I won't say they can't -
just that I think they're pushing that risk envelope awfully hard).
But people can, and do, play that intensely. I've seen it. I've done
it, on occasion. It can be incredibly *intense*. Just because you
don't ever want to do it doesn't make it impossible for others.
JH > As for the TPE relationship, the old tit-slicing arguments are
> getting pretty tired. But I honestly don't believe there's a slave
> on the planet who doesn't have *some* limits, whether s/he's
> encountered them or not. Killing your mother? Letting your owner
> fuck your four-year-old? Hmmm?...
Of *course* everyone has limits. No matter how intense the submission,
I can't order Babalon to levitate.
But Babalon is an honorable wench. If she had, indeed, entered into a
TPE agreement with me, and I ordered her to do something on that order,
she'd do her level best to carry out my orders.
This is precicely why everyone who practices or advocates TPE agrees on
one thing - it's not something to do with someone you don't know and
trust implicitly - not just with your life, but with your psyche and
soul (or whatever you call it).
It's not for everybody - it's for damn few, to be honest. It's not for
me. It's certainly *not* the One True Way. But it *is* for those who
crave just that level of D/s, and Their Kink Is OK.
JH > What I *do* believe is that both the no-safeword scene and the TPE
> relationship are collaborative in nature, with both partners
> working together to support the belief that there's no way out and
> no backing down. And since their reality is their own, that is
> indeed the case -- until such time as it isn't :/ .
Okay - you're willing to let them indulge this as a hot fantasy, without
buying into it yourself, and you hope they don't go >splat< somewhere
down the road. I can deal with that a whole lot better than some idjiit
insisting that it's impossible, and "wrong" somehow to even try.
(Ahhh, a stroll down memory lane. For those unaware, Verdant and I have
had pretty much this same argument before - and I don't think either of
us is going to change the other's mind this time, either. But she has
the skill to explain *why* she doesn't believe, rather than just
stamping a foot and wailing "Nonononono!", like some others in this
thread. Not that it matters to any but me, but I don't consider this
YKINOKism - it's intelligent debate.)
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
(posted and emailed)
--
Old farts these days! Not like when I was a boy! Then we had real geezers!
Midnight Writer
In article <674t26$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
TR > mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) responds to
MW | Midnight Writer (me) thusly:
|
| Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power
| exchange - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a
| relationship that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen
| and participated in the one, and heard reliable reports of the
| other. Wishing it into nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may
| make you feel happier, but don't expect anyone else to ignore it to
| make *you* feel safer.
TR > If not as a limit, how would you describe the unwillingness to kill
> one's mother? Wishing limits into non-existence and/or ignoring
> them won't eliminate them.
I imagine that some TPE folk do some things that they'd otherwise be
unwilling to do. Killing one's mother is an extreme example, but I can
work with that.
If, in a TPE relationship, the dom decides that the sub must go kill
their mother, there are several possiblities. I'll list them in order
of decreasing liklihood (of course, this is theory only - I've got
nothing at all for a dataset on such an order in a TPE relationship.)
1 - very likely, the sub will realize that they made a horrible mistake
in submitting so deeply to this particular dom. It won't
necessarily effect either of the other two possiblities I list
below, but it'll likely be a phase of the resolution.
2(a) - the sub decides that this is insanity, withdraws consent, and
everyone concerned finds out that it wasn't TPE after all.
2(b) - the sub considers honor and the TPE to be more important than
anything else, and goes forth to off mom. I get a data point to
use in silly extremist arguments like this, and somebody is very
likely to end up in jail.
Wishing levels of submission and dominance into non-existance and/or
ignoring them won't eliminate them. <smile>
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
(posted and emailed)
--
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
Todd Hawley
On Tue, 16 Dec 97 19:28:19 GMT, skee...@hotmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>Vixen
>(the wicked one) wrote:
>
>>I have seen Cinderella written in COBOL, so why not the slave rules?
>>
>>IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
>>THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
>
>ROFLMAO! (and damn it's hard to get coffee stains off the monitor)
>
>What next ... C ?
How about a Java class?? :)))
public sub extends sm class
is sub is good;
then pleasure
else
pain;
hehehe..I am in a demented mood today!! (and no, this prolly isn't
correct Java syntax..so sue me! lol)
-th
-th
My web page: http://www.tdl.com/~thawley
To reply in email to me, remove the NOSPAM from my email
address. Death to spammers!!!!
Mairi
In <34963B...@ix.netcom.com> Arrow Blue <Arro...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
were
>no laws.
>That's like asking how far a redhead would go if there were no laws.
>There's going to be no consistency within the group as to what they
>would do. The person will do what his or her morals (or lack of)
dictate
>- whether or not he gets off on whipping someone or just likes the
idea
>of picking up a new car without that pesky payment plan.
>
As a redhead, I'd like to know what laws have to do with anything. I
go as far as I want, period. Laws? They're for blonds...
Mairi
Elocutus of Borg
> You can't get more extreme that Nazi's vs Ghandi.
I'll take Gandhi in the fourth round by a TKO.
--Elocutus
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tom Robertson
Skeeve wrote:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>Are you saying that being willing to
>>drink Drano if one's dom told one to is a good thing? Is there a
>>human being alive who should be trusted that much?
>The magic word in the above statement is 'willing' to which I would answer
>yes.
>
>To be willing to drink drano is something totally different from the actual
>drinking of the drano.
I don't understand that, since I don't see what it could mean but to
say that one is so willing, but then, when asked to do it, one would
say that it's absurd to actually do it. Maybe the "TPE" kink is to
pretend that one is so willing without actually being willing, as
others in this thread have suggested.
Tom Robertson
Midnight Writer wrote:
>However, there are indeed relationships which are no-safeword, no-limit,
>whatever the dom desires - which are safe, sane, entirely consensual,
>and greatly enjoyed by all involved parties.
>
>If they're not *your* kink, Tom - don't do one.
>
>If you don't want *anyone* to do 'em - learn to live with
>disappointment. Preferably, learn to live with disappointment quietly.
What's funny is that I'm not the only one who has told you that it's
not a matter of disapproving of a "TPE." It's a matter of not
believing it's possible, the way it is insisted on being expressed by
those who claim to be in one. Your holy, OTW crusade against my
condemnation of what others have actually experienced is a total
strawman.
>Who in the world led you to believe that you, with no experience of a
>no-safeword, no-limits relationship, have any right or responsibility to
>stand on your hind legs and tell other people about them?
No one has any experience with a relationship with no limits, unless,
as has been suggested by others in this thread, it really means no
relevant limits. You might as well be asking me that, since you added
up 2 and 2 yesterday and got 5, who am I to say that it really adds up
to 4? After all, since there's no common ground between what any two
human beings experience, to each his own!
>Who led you to believe that you've got that kind of authority over anyone? >Hell - what gave you the idea that you were *capable*?
Calling what disagrees with you an attempt to exercise authority,
emphasizing who said it more than what was said, and telling those
whom you don't understand that they don't have as much right to an
opinion about what "no limits" can mean as those whom you do
understand all reveal your own uncertainty and weakness.
>No, I'm not a net-god who can command you - consider this forcefully-
>phrased advice. But it's advice from someone who has been around a bit
>longer than you, who has seen this all before, who will not quit, and
>who has a *lot* more allies than you.
The strength that is found in numbers tends to interfere with the
majority's emphasis on what is true.
Tom Robertson
Spyral Fox wrote:
>In article <674t26$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, >mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) writes:
>=If not as a limit, how would you describe the unwillingness to kill
>=one's mother? Wishing limits into non-existence and/or ignoring them
>=won't eliminate them.
>They don't need to be non-existant, they simply aren't relevant
>most of the time. I'm not going to kill my mother. So you could call it
>a limit. OTOH, my Owner is not going to ask me to kill my mom
>unless He's barking mad -- and if He were, and I was not, you can expect
>that I'd both not obey Him and would seek professional treatment
>for Him. Of course, if I'm also nutso, I might not *have* any limits.
This is probably the best explanation of what "TPEers" mean by "no
limits" that I've seen. It means "as far as the sub can tell, no
relevant limits," not "no limits."
Tom Robertson
WickdVixen wrote:
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 1997 >22:37 EST in <674t26$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>>Midnight Writer wrote:
>>> Like it or not, there are some few who do practice total power exchange
>>> - either in a "no-safeword" scene that lasts minutes, or a relationship
>>> that lasts for years, if not a lifetime. I've seen and participated in
>>> the one, and heard reliable reports of the other. Wishing it into
>>> nonexistance won't work. Ignoring it may make you feel happier, but
>>> don't expect anyone else to ignore it to make *you* feel safer.
>>If not as a limit, how would you describe the unwillingness to kill
>>one's mother? Wishing limits into non-existence and/or ignoring them
>>won't eliminate them.
>How would you describe people who have no such limit?
Assuming mom hasn't requested it, unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual.
Shalon Wood
wickd...@aol.com (WickdVixen) writes:
> I have seen Cinderella written in COBOL, so why not the slave rules?
>
> IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
> THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
>
SAFEWORD!
Shalon Wood
--
People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die.
--Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Midnight Writer
In article <676klb$65e$2...@newsfep4.sprintmail.com>,
S > skee...@hotmail.com (Skeeve) wrote, quoting
V | Vixen (the wicked one), who wrote:
|
| I have seen Cinderella written in COBOL, so why not the slave rules?
|
| IF SUB IS OVERKNEES
| THEN MOVE PADDLE TO SUBSBUTT
S > ROFLMAO! (and damn it's hard to get coffee stains off the monitor)
>
> What next ... C ?
>
> <imagining some really bizzarre subroutines>
Skeeve - why did you think they called them SUBroutines?
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
(posted and emailed)
--
If puns are outlawed, only outlaws will have puns.
Tom Robertson
Midnight Writer wrote:
>it's awfully rude, at best, to insist that another's belief about their lifestyle is >invalid.
I believe that I'm the final authority on the morality of all bdsm
practices.
>JH > What I *do* believe is that both the no-safeword scene and the TPE
> > relationship are collaborative in nature, with both partners
> > working together to support the belief that there's no way out and
> > no backing down. And since their reality is their own, that is
> > indeed the case -- until such time as it isn't :/ .
>Okay - you're willing to let them indulge this as a hot fantasy, without
>buying into it yourself, and you hope they don't go >splat< somewhere
>down the road. I can deal with that a whole lot better than some idjiit
>insisting that it's impossible, and "wrong" somehow to even try.
"TPEers" indulging in the fantasy of total power exchange is entirely
consistent with what I have written. I _might_ even grant my approval
of it in some cases. The disagreement is when they don't realize that
it's a fantasy. Fully real and total power exchange can't possibly be
consensual, since the very act of submission is impossible unless the
sub has the power to do it. And at least I know how to spell "idjit."
JestrJestr
In article <6776p9$d...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson) writes:
>>it's awfully rude, at best, to insist that another's belief about their
>lifestyle is >invalid.
I believe that I'm the final authority on the
>morality of all bdsm
practices.
Wow, someone has an overextended view of himself.
I think it's interesting that an argument against TPE is that a person claims
never to have seen it or that the person doesn't believe in it; therefore, it
does not exist.
Well, you know, on further reflection, I've discovered that I don't believe
I've ever seen an Albanian, even on television. Therefore, Albanians do not
exist.
People HAVE been in TPE relationships. I've been in a TPE relationship. During
one particular one, there was not a decision she ever made that I did not carry
out consistently. She didn't turn into a raving lunatic and have me cut off my
breasts, or anything like that. It was a stated TPE relationship between the
two of us. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it wasn't TPE, but
both of us believed it was, and nothing ever happened to make it anything less
than TPE.
So, you didn't experience it yourself. Sorry, that's life. But don't
immediately assume that everyone else in the world is living in "your" world.
There are a lot of us who have experienced quite a bit, some more than me,
others less, but we have experiences that you obviously don't have.
So, we can't meet your "written" demands of what TPE is. Well, we met "our"
demands of TPE, and fortunately, you are NOT the final authority when it comes
to BDSM relationships.
My point when I first started arguing in this thread is that people need to
understand that putting "their" definitions on others' relationships are what
demean us all. We claim to be a community of individuals seeking the same
rights for all of us, but then we have to belittle those of us who believe one
thing or another. If someone is in a gay relationship, does that mean that
they're not in a D/s relationship because someone defines a D/s relationship as
between a man and a woman? Is someone not in a D/s relationship because he's a
submissive and a Master claims that only submissive women are, in fact,
submissive? Of course not. We represent a whole group of people with
different definitions of what we are.
Unfortunately, there are those amongst us who would rather implicate rather
than placate, but that's been the way when others attacked us in other groups
before.
Duane Gundrum
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
Joe Zeff
Elocutus of Borg <Elocutu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't get more extreme that Nazi's vs Ghandi.
>
>I'll take Gandhi in the fourth round by a TKO.
>
Not me, nor Gandhi himself. He stated that his tactics would have
been completely ineffective against the nazis[1] because they'd have
been indifferent to the suffering involved and to public opinion in
such a case. They only worked against the British because the British
were humane enough to be moved by the suffering and the popular
reaction.
[1]Although this word is (supposedly) a proper noun and would normally
be capitalized, I refuse, considering it a highly improper noun and
the people referred to far too common to have their collective noun
*be* proper.
---
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
If you can't play with words, what good are they?
http://www.lasfs.org
Tom Robertson
JestrJestr wrote:
>My point when I first started arguing in this thread is that people need to
>understand that putting "their" definitions on others' relationships are what
>demean us all. We claim to be a community of individuals seeking the same
>rights for all of us, but then we have to belittle those of us who believe one
>thing or another. If someone is in a gay relationship, does that mean that
>they're not in a D/s relationship because someone defines a D/s >relationship as between a man and a woman?
As you say, it's better that anyone can define any word any way that
he or she wants. If I am in a relationship, I can call it a "TPE,"
since I can define the word "limits" any way I want to, and it's wrong
for anyone else to put their definition on my relationship.
Similarly, it is up to each individual to say whether or not a gay
relationship is a d/s relationship, since the meaning of the terms is
up to each individual.
>Is someone not in a D/s relationship because he's a
>submissive and a Master claims that only submissive women are, in fact,
>submissive? Of course not. We represent a whole group of people with
>different definitions of what we are.
Why couldn't those different definitions include only regarding
submissive women as submissive? I, for example, regard submissive men
as igiewfjes, not as submissives. Since I happen to be an igiewfj, no
one has the right to put their definition on what I am and call me a
submissive. Your "of course not" is an exclusionary OTWism that
reflects unwillingness to accept diversity of opinion.
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail
to LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On 16 Dec 1997 14:39:16 GMT, "Shunyata" <shun...@pclink.plugcom>
wrote:
> How many of us fantasize, for instance,
>about being led naked on a leash on a public street? Quite a few of
>us; but only those of us who also fantasize about being the lead
>story on the 10:00 news and losing our jobs actually indulge that
>fantasy - generally speaking.
Let me tell you about nude beaches! <grin> an especially fine
one is at Sandy Hook National Seashore in New Jersey. Now you
know what your tax dollars go for - lifeguards and beach
maintenance!
It is a very family atmosphere and the regulars have been known
to escort the guys with cameras OFF the beach. I'll admit that I
didn't see any leashes, but I don't think it would cause that
much of a stir.
~LG
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
--
"The secret of being miserable is to have leisure to bother about whether
you are happy or not. The cure for it is occupation."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
CathrineMW
Tom Robertson wrote:
>>I believe that I'm the final authority on the morality of all bdsm
I hope you all know this is coming from a man who has had no expereience in
bdsm of any kind. Wait, that is a lie... a girlfriend ONCE tied him up during
sex in college... some 15/20 years ago.
Ignore the little weasel and he will leave. All he wants is the attention, so,
he can feel important.
Cathrine
Spyral Fox
In article <kdrl0w/MGeuJ...@visi.com>, emd...@visi.com
(Midnight Writer) writes:
[...]]
=S'okay - I've got no right to insist that you believe something that you
=don't want to believe. OTOH, it's awfully rude, at best, to insist that
=another's belief about their lifestyle is invalid. Ferinstance, I know
=a guy who simply does not believe that anyone can possibly enjoy being
=flogged, unless the flogging is gentle enough to be painless. That's
=okay, too - I don't need for him to believe otherwise.
:::nod, nod, nod::::
= But I won't sit
=idly by and watch him tell my painslut that she's deluded, junior.
:::starts a bit wildly
-- looks around
-- checks poster's username
--breathes sigh of releif:::::
>(I'm getting this odd sensation of deja vu - good to see you again,
>Verdant)
Like he said!
[...]
>Of *course* everyone has limits. No matter how intense the submission,
>I can't order Babalon to levitate.
Sure you can. Of course, she might have difficulty *complying*....
JestrJestr
In article <677csp$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson) writes:
>If I am in a relationship, I can call it a "TPE,"
since I can define the word
>"limits" any way I want to, and it's wrong
for anyone else to put their
>definition on my relationship.
Yet, you're quite willing to define what is TPE to me and everyone else who
states that they "do" know that their relationships have been TPE. I guess
you're going back to that belief that YOU define what is TPE and no one else
does.
Well, I guess you have tons of D/s experience to back that up then, huh?
Duane
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
JestrJestr
In article <19971217031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, cathr...@aol.com
(CathrineMW) writes:
Is this true? You mean I'm arguing TPE with someone who has no idea what a
real life SM-D/s situation is? Sheesh...my penguin has more experience than he
does (if that's true).
Duane
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
JestrJestr
>Why couldn't those different definitions include only regarding
submissive
>women as submissive? I, for example, regard submissive men
as igiewfjes, not
>as submissives. Since I happen to be an igiewfj, no
one has the right to put
>their definition on what I am and call me a
submissive. Your "of course not"
>is an exclusionary OTWism that
reflects unwillingness to accept diversity of
>opinion.
What???
CathrineMW
>Is this true? You mean I'm arguing TPE with someone who has no idea what a
>real life SM-D/s situation is? Sheesh...my penguin has more experience than
>he
>does (if that's true).
>
>
Yes, it is true. He said it himself. You're arguing TPE with someone who has
done pretty much absolutely nothing. He got tied up once 20 some years ago.
He is vanilla.. pure and simple.
I shall now return to just watching (because it's so darn funny to watch people
argue with him. He's going to be the next "Wulf")
Cathrine
JestrJestr
In article <19971217062...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, cathr...@aol.com
(CathrineMW) writes:
>Yes, it is true. He said it himself. You're arguing TPE with someone who
>has
done pretty much absolutely nothing. He got tied up once 20 some years
>ago.
He is vanilla.. pure and simple.
I shall now return to just watching
>(because it's so darn funny to watch people
argue with him. He's going to be
>the next "Wulf")
I guess I fell into the web of that one. Oh well, joshua and I will go into
silent mode again.
Duane
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
Arrow Blue
> jk wrote:
Perhaps that's the key - the attraction towards a relationship where
there are no limits whatsoever, and believing that is possible is what
drives some D/s and especially M/s relationships. It was asked once of
a bdsm education and discussion group - of how far would bdsm'rs go if
there were no laws. Think about it. And think about this: if you say
you have no limits - how far will the relationship go anyway?
> Arrow says:
Now that's a silly thing to ask - how far would bdsm'rs go if there
were no laws. That's like asking how far a redhead would go if there
were no laws. There's going to be no consistency within the group as to
what they would do. The person will do what his or her morals (or lack
of) dictate - whether or not he gets off on whipping someone or just
likes the idea of picking up a new car without that pesky payment plan.
Shunyata wrote:
> That's an awfully strong statement, and I disagree. Whether or
> not it's a silly question depends upon how you interepret the
> question. When I read that question, I see it as simply asking,
> "What limits would exist in your ideal D/s relationship if there
> were no limits imposed by law?"
Arrow:
The same as everyone else's - whatever my personal morality and my
perception of my relationship dictates. Any other answer would be a
judgement on someone else's version of bdsm.
Shunyata:
> Limits can cover a rather broad spectrum - they don't just cover
> how much actual physical harm or risk is acceptable, but, for
> example, how much clothing a sub will wear in public. Many of the
> limits that we observe within our relationships *are* limits that
> are imposed upon us by the legal and social structure of the larger
> community on which we live. How many of us fantasize, for instance,
> about being led naked on a leash on a public street? Quite a few of
> us; but only those of us who also fantasize about being the lead
> story on the 10:00 news and losing our jobs actually indulge that
> fantasy - generally speaking.
Arrow:
Most of that has more to do with being outted and ostracized by the rest
of the population. Do you think that would stop happening just because
public nudity becomes legal?
Practically everything we do is illegal - we just usually don't do it
where people who would be offended can see us so the legality point is
pretty moot anyway.
Shunyata:
> And as for there being no consistency within the group on this
> matter - well, isn't that the point of a discussion forum? :-)
>
Arrow:
Not when the question is asking what the consistent reaction would be
for the group.
Does that make it any clearer?
Arrow
Tom Robertson
CathrineMW wrote:
>>Is this true? You mean I'm arguing TPE with someone who has no idea >>what a real life SM-D/s situation is? Sheesh...my penguin has more >>experience than he does (if that's true).
>Yes, it is true. He said it himself. You're arguing TPE with someone who >has done pretty much absolutely nothing. He got tied up once 20 some >years ago.
That's right. It's true. And I'll bet you have the quotes to prove
it, just as you did when I questioned the following (true, naturally)
statement you made about me:
>"Around a year and a half ago, you told Karen privately that because she >refused to except *your* definition of reality that you would follow her >anywhere she publicly posted to releave her as a liar and a hypocrit."
And _I'm_ a liar!!! This just keeps gettin' funnier and funnier.