"No Limits": Fact or Fiction (A Counterpoint)

[Cade]

This article is intended as a contradistinction to the writing "The Importance of LIMITS" (this site/topic/13480-the-importance-of-limits). I decided to write a separate article, as I do not disagree with many points of the post: limits can be important to any relationship and do help keep people safe. If you're new to this lifestyle, if you're with a new play partner, or you just simply don't feel safe without them, limits can be vital to exploring interactions with others. However, the writing makes one significant flaw, in my opinion; it makes the common error of negating and critisizing "no limit" dynamics by insinuating they CANNOT be safe.

BDSM encompasses various forms of relationship dynamics, many of which embody the basic idea of domination and submission (d/s), or a person in consensual control over another, of varying degrees. This might be as simple as kinky role play in the bedroom only, but can also go as far as m/s (master or mistress/slave, the most common form of owner/property dynamic). Likewise, another common mode of relationship in this community is known as TPE/TAT (Total power exchange/total authority transfer). If you've been in this community for any amount of time and done even a little research, I'm certain m/s and TPE/TAT are not new phrases to you; they are not novel ideas and have been part of this lifestyle far longer than I've been into it. This article will be highlighting both.

The differences between d/s and m/s are subtle and sometimes hard to discern from an outside perspective. Common to both is one person consensual controlling various aspects of another's life; to simplify the difference, we can see that d/s has extensive to few limits, while m/s typically has few to no limits ideally (the exact differences are as numerous as the reasons why each of us explore this dynamic, of course). In context, a slave gives over as much control of themselves as possible, where as, a submissive still retains much of their control over the relationship. Of course, in the above concept, it takes time to train a slave, and no one should start out offering "no limits" with someone they just met. The concept of "no limits" in BDSM is based on the idea that protocol and consistency can create a foundation of trust in which someone has earned the ability to use another in any way they see fit - within reasonable and logical practicality - the most basic consideration being not to make your slave unable to serve.

Now, let's examine the common term TPE (and in more recent times, TAT). This acceptable form of dynamic is just another kind of "no limit" relationship in which one individual turns over TOTAL power or authority to another they find worthy of such devoted subservience. Certainly not something that occurs instantaneously, but still, a relationship typical to BDSM (if not created within the BDSM realm). Many people have tried to create a TPE/TAT dynamic; some incredibly successful, some...not so much to the extreme.

If you're part of an active BDSM community, you've probably come across many "no limit" dynamics that are safe and successful, but you might not even have realized. At this point, one-sided teachings like "no limits means bad" have caused such a stigma on the phrase that many are afraid to admit it. Some have had to hide their desired dynamic even within the very community that professes acceptance of these types of alternative dynamics. The BDSM community is the appropriate forum to research and explore "no limit" dynamics, and belittling these relationships dimishes the lifestyle and its history on whole. Not all of us can be reduced to mere role play and pretend, nor abusive and unsafe.

In short, "no limits" does not mean NO SAFETY. It doesn't mean no protocol. It doesn't mean no common sense. "No limits" in the BDSM world simply means a relationship that has accomplished a level of trust and experience in which the interactions are not limited by traditional terms. Yes, I can instruct my slave to do anything I desire, but why would I make them do something that might cease their ability to serve me? The notion is as absurd as the examples of negative acts one might want from someone with no limits. You wouldn't buy a nice, new car just to drive it into wall - why would anyone make their servant unable to do what they have been trained to do?

In conclusion, limits can help keep you safe, but that doesn't mean no limits means no safety. Just as with anything in life, a "no limit" dynamic in the wrong hands can be extremely dangerous, but doesn't mean every hand that indulges is the "wrong hands". In the wrong hands, limits and safewords can be unsafe! But I wouldn't disparage a person who uses them for that decision, as we all decide our level of participation within our dynamic, from bedroom players to lifestylers. What is sadly happening is this form of one-sided teaching is shaming many of those that do live this as a lifestyle. I mean, how often can we hear that our lifestyle choice is unsafe, makes us abusive or ignorant, even that we're not real before we give up trying to explain the simple idea that malicious intent is the real danger?

Edited May 31, 2020 by Cade
Link fix

[Deleted Member]

Great read and thanks for that.

Yep totally agree, to put it simply it's not the gun that kills but the person who pulls the trigger. I have thought this for a long time but without wanting to sound like a prick I like to think I'm quite sensible and I do genuinely care about others, not just my own sexual gratification. Sadly it those who move with spite and malice as you say that can be and are the issue more than limits or safewords etc. A limit or even a safe word is of no use to those who don't play by the rules and for me rule number 1 is common sense. I have played with no limits only once and I didn't all of a sudden turn Into this raging beast who lost all rational thought, forgot my duty of care to my partner. We knew each other and we knew each other well, yes I Defo pushed a little harder than usual but not that much and was monitoring her closely at all times to ensure her wellbeing. Common sense but sadly many either lack it or just don't care and I *** it's the latter of those two. If the friendship is good and you understand each other well then there for me is no reason to have limits as I then have my own unspoken ones and they are unbreakable. I can see some interesting replies to your post today 😊

[ey****]

Absolutely.

I think this is a good topic in general.

I don't subscribe to the automatic idea that "No limits = Bad" 

I think it's something a lot of people get wrong.

So, the male sub who arrives and declares they have 'no limits' who very quickly discovers they do when the first 2-3 things asked are refused - or the Dominant whose starting point is to already want a submissive who will immediately start on 'no limits'

But, yep, there are many successful relationship I know which are ultimately no limits relationships - they just, well, didn't happen overnight.

[Wo****]

Great post....

I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I agree that a relationship can be built to a point you don't need to use safe words, and that in M/s dynamics there less likely to exist but even then it's not a case of "No limits" because there will have been (or should have been) discussions about any limits beforehand.

 

I absolutely get that some dynamics don't have limits or safe words, I've been with Pirate nearly a year now and only used my safe word once and discovered one limit that's becoming less so. I have limits (scat being a definite hard limit) but very few. I think it's just I don't think it's wise to declare "I have no limits" it's too absolute. I have no limits with my partner/playmate.... that I get but no limits, at all? Ever? That's what I think is unsafe (especially as a woman)

[Deleted Member]

22 minutes ago, LazyPiratesBounty said:

. I think it's just I don't think it's wise to declare "I have no limits" it's too absolute. I have no limits with my partner/playmate.... that I get but no limits, at all? Ever? That's what I think is unsafe (especially as a woman)

😊I can understand your reply totally especially knowing what I know about you. Its more about who you declare it too though isn't it, for some this would be perfect because there are always limits really aren't there. Its about the players and the Dom/Domme if they have any character have natural limits and private self emposed ones. This was the poont Cade made right at the end of the post, malicious intent. You have told me a couple of times about Pirate being a caring sadist so please correct me if you think I'm wrong but even though he inflicts *** that you crave do you think he means you serious harm? I don't think so at all, consent is the key, if you give consent for no limits you give that consent to someone you trust whom you would know carries affection for you, again it's the players not the situation. Trust and knowledge about the person you choose but again of course limits and safewords are vital for most, but not all.

[Wo****]

@Donnykinkster 

Pirate will absolutely hurt me but never harm me. It'd destroy him if he harmed me.

Agree with all the points made. I'm being pedantic really. I'm no against "No limits" I'm against the idiots that declare they'll do anything because they have no limits to anyone and everyone. Each dynamic is different, with its own limits and boundaries.

I have very few limits with Pirate, I have limits with other people that I don't have with Pirate because we've built that level of trust.

[Deleted Member]

100% agree with you, Cade. Great write up.

[Deleted Member]

Limits are not the same as Hard Limits or Absolute Limits. I think many use the terms interchangeably. Intent is everything when it comes to action. End result of action is always the sum of intent. The mantra of intent must always be SAFE, SANE, CONSENSUAL.

[Deleted Member]

Fabulous rebuttal and I do agree with the points you make. Limits are 100% transferrable as well as interchangeable between dynamics. None are set in stone and of course when trust outweighs everything else then yes they can become obsolete. To say you’ve no limits with a chosen person is however different to saying you’re limitless. 💗

[Th****]

Thank you Cade, that was a most excellent piece.

It was definitely a point worth making, and I am glad that you gave a voice to TPE.

I think that the centre of this is whether the other party understands what they are consenting to in a TPE. Of course, in your case Cade I am certain that you highlight the elements involved as well as you did in this article.

The beauty to me of TPE is not the absence of limits per se. It is the depth of trust that the absence requires. It is a thing of beauty.

Your metaphor of crashing the new car into the wall was excellent as well.

It is always nice to have the other side 👍😁

[Leisa]

Cade I agree with you that with time and trust becomes the reduction of limits until it becomes limitless in the dynamic. I also agree that there are dynamics where no limits are expected or set because of the agreement between the parties as to what type of dynamic is being entered into. I think that these are relationships that developed over time and as trust is built through training and dedication of the parties to reach this level of commitment. Though I’ve never entered into nor wanted a TPE/TAT dynamic I can see the appeal of such a relationship to others and in that context I can see the process to no pushback and no limits. That type of relationship takes on an entirely new dynamic of which I have admiration for those involved. The complete trust and dedication of both parties is beautiful. Knowing that you can hurt but not harm. Why would anyone want to cause harm to someone whom they’ve completely dedicated their life to?

In our dynamic we have the same innate limits that were discovered through hours of conversation about what those entailed. Aside from those distinctions we’ve not set limits but I know there are certain things he will not do because of dedication and duty of care therefore I trust that whatever I’m being asked to do is in furtherance of the relationship. Aside from that I’ve placed my safety and well-being into his capable hands. It’s not my place to tell him how to be the dominant. He knows I will always be a brat and I know there will always be consequences for being one but I have the utmost respect and trust in him to make the punishment fit the acts.

In reading the initial article I could see many fallacies contained within it and understand completely the need for a counterpoint from those experienced in the type of dynamic lived on the daily. In reading the original article I read it as being geared toward those new to the lifestyle in which many of those experienced have embraced. It’s unfortunate that there are so many who are young to the lifestyle believing they can run straight into the dynamics of the more experienced. Many coming in are flying by the seat of their pants to achieve from the start the same lifestyle that has taken others years to develop. They’re not doing proper research or training thinking this lifestyle is something it’s really not and that play partners equate to relationships that last. You wouldn’t hand the keys to your car to a 5 year old so why would anyone want to put their safety and well-being into the hands of someone not trained to be a dominant of ethical distinction? I’d like to think that is the direction the article was geared for and was not geared toward those who have been in this lifestyle for years.

[Phoenyx]

I believe that this discussion needs a bit of clarification.  The appearance of "no limits" applies to experienced players.  They still have limits.  Those limits are just so high, that they appear to be absent.  There are also those cases, where the sub's limits are higher than those of the Dom or Domina.  But, that gets into a whole, new topic, "Do Doms/Dommes Have Limits?"

In the threads that I have read, more often than not, the seeming vilification of "no limits" is directed at new, inexperienced players.  So many newbies come on here, and try to boast, "no limits".  They have limits.  They just haven't discovered them yet.  Such apparent disregard triggers an emotional response among those more experienced---much like screaming, "WATCH OUT", when someone appears ready to step in front of a bus.

As for never having a safeword, I would say that the lack of a safeword is never a good idea.  Go into any factory, machine shop, print shop, etc.  Even the safest piece of equipment has an emergency "STOP" button.  That machine may go through its entire service life, without that button ever being pressed.  But, like the safeword, it is always there, just in case...

[cautiousswitch]

The distinction that you make but do not emphasize in the "no limits" scenarios used as examples is that the person giving up power knows the person taking control enough to trust them.  There are limits but they aren't spoken because the people involved know each other well enough that it shouldn't be an issue.

The extreme devil's advocate scenario is that a dominant in a TPE relationship with absolutely no limits is free to give the sub away and the sub would be expected to follow their new dom/me with as much loyalty as they did the first.  "But they would never do that because the sub trusted them and that would betray the trust..." In other words, there was a limit there.

The initial trust that is built going into a TPE relationship comes from having a history of understanding and respecting limits each other's limits.  Donnykinkster pointed out that saying "no limits" isn't going to automatically turn the dom/me into a psychotic monster, which is true.  But "no limits" in the relationships described in the original article is said with that expectation in mind, so there really is an expectation of limits.

My argument is one mostly of semantics and we can bat it back and forth all day and never agree on it.  However, there have been enough posts from new kinksters who do not understand the distinction between "no limits" between people who know each other well and absolutely no limits at all that it would be irresponsible of us to promote "no limits" without making the distinction very clear.

[Cade]

7 hours ago, phoenyx said:

I believe that this discussion needs a bit of clarification.  The appearance of "no limits" applies to experienced players.  They still have limits.

 

3 hours ago, cautiousswitch said:

The distinction that you make but do not emphasize in the "no limits" scenarios used as examples is that the person giving up power knows the person taking control enough to trust them.  There are limits...

I'd like to express my appreciation to both of you for your posts, as they embody one of the issues I am trying to discuss - belittlement of others dynamics (as in, trying to portray we are not what we profess). Let's start with the most obvious question: Have either of you personally participated and experienced a "no limit" dynamic? Or are you only speaking from a very limited third-party vantage based on an extremely limited number of friends and acquaintances - if that?

My dynamic is CNC owner/property. My slave has no limits (indeed, after an eight year process). Nice to meet you.

7 hours ago, phoenyx said:

In the threads that I have read, more often than not, the seeming vilification of "no limits" is directed at new, inexperienced players.

Using a direct quote from the OP this article is discussing: "Can BDSM ever be LIMITLESS and Safe??" This insinuation isn't only directed at newbies, but at BDSM in general. I obviously can't speak for the articles you've read, but ones I have read make the similar mistake; we CAN teach new people to the community the dangers of being "no limits" without negating dynamics that are common place in this community.

4 hours ago, cautiousswitch said:

However, there have been enough posts from new kinksters who do not understand the distinction between "no limits" between people who know each other well and absolutely no limits at all that it would be irresponsible of us to promote "no limits" without making the distinction very clear.

I'm certainly not arguing against teaching newbies the dangers of "no limits", but the issue here is that I don't want "no limits equals not safe" taught either. I think there is one common complaint from BDSM veterans about the public scene today compared to the ones we grew up in, that the community seems disingenuous, artificial, not authentic anymore. This is because of lessons like this that make people that do indulge in lifestyle owner/property dynamics no longer feel accepted. Our lifestyle (which some of us have been living for decades in good standing) are merely lipservice according to you (and others, of course): we say we don't have limits, but really do. Some people only learn that "no limits equals unsafe", so when someone like me says I have a no limit dynamic, the initial response is how abusive I must be, or that I'm not a "real" [insert role here], that I don't belong here. These are all things I've actually been told about my dynamic from outside perspectives, and worse still.

I've been trying diligently not to call it what it is, but let's face it, this is a form of kink shaming.

8 hours ago, phoenyx said:

As for never having a safeword, I would say that the lack of a safeword is never a good idea.  Go into any factory, machine shop, print shop, etc.  Even the safest piece of equipment has an emergency "STOP" button.  That machine may go through its entire service life, without that button ever being pressed.  But, like the safeword, it is always there, just in case...

I hadn't really even broached the no safewords topic, but wanted to adjust your example to better analogize safewords. Let's say you do walk into that factory, machine or print shop, walk over to that safest machine, but there are two (or even more) buttons - one labelled "pumpernickel", the other "Copernicus". In my eyes, this is a far better example of safewords.

My slave doesn't need safewords because she is able to communicate directly to me, and trusts I'll take the course of action I deem best for the situation. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't use safewords at all, and yes, with new partners that haven't been taught how to communicate directly, safewords are an easier way to ensure overall safety (although, I adhere to the stop light safewords with very little need to interpret the use - red meaning "I need to stop/I can't take anymore", and yellow meaning "I need to express myself to you").

[cautiousswitch]

16 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

I'm certainly not arguing against teaching newbies the dangers of "no limits", but the issue here is that I don't want "no limits equals not safe" taught either.

The concept of safety implies limits.  Things go from safe to unsafe because some limit is crossed. 

You are right, I have never been in a "no limits" relationship.  As you and others on the thread explain it common sense and safety are still expected.  "No limits" means there is no laundry list of dos and don'ts but there is still an expectation of unspoken limits - safety, common sense, etc.  As has been stated this comes from experienced people who know each other well.

Some of the people on this thread have also posted on threads dedicated to discussions on limits and safety words blatantly stating that true slaves don't deserve limits.  I've been contacted by a few supposed dommes on this site who state that slaves get no limits in their profile and try to treat me as their slave with no prior discussion.  So even though I understand that when you speak of a "no limits" relationship you do not literally mean anything goes, I will always resist the use of that phrase in public discussions. 

[Cade]

5 minutes ago, cautiousswitch said:

The concept of safety implies limits.

No. Your concept of safety implies limits. And that's okay! You're not wrong - FOR YOU. It's when we try to en*** an opinion for ourselves as a truth for everyone that it becomes problematic.

[Oubliet]

There was that keyword "trust" in the comments, good stuff

[cautiousswitch]

10 hours ago, Cade said:

No. Your concept of safety implies limits. And that's okay! You're not wrong - FOR YOU. It's when we try to en*** an opinion for ourselves as a truth for everyone that it becomes problematic.

Give an example of a distinction between something being safe and something being unsafe where there is no limit?

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, cautiousswitch said:

Give an example of a distinction between something being safe and something being unsafe 

You assume that anything in BDSM is safe..... it isnt. only more or less safe. In reading through the thread and honestly thinking deeply about the connections of dynamic that Cade was originally explaining I would assume ( rightly or wrongly) that perhaps a "no limits" dynamic that has grown through years of training, bonding and discussions is perhaps "more safe" than that of a newly established safe word using limit abiding dynamic. With the above mentioned "no limits" dynamic, the slightest movement given by an s type would yield a full conversation to the D type. Knowing their body signals implicitly allowing for clear truthful communication of when play has reached its peak. With the newer dynamic i mentioned, there is a far greater opportunity for a safeword to be forgotten, for the limit to be pushed on either side, frenzy to set in etc etc etc. 

Conversely, i believe that all interactions must begin somewhere and the safest initial course would be that of using safe words and limits until such time as the Trust, Communication and mutual respect is at a point where limits might exceed the realms of play and both parties are comfortable with any part of what could be requested, demanded or actioned within a scene or during the course of the dynamic daily life. jumping into a no limit dynamic from the offset is perhaps the most ignorant and dangerous course of action, even for those that are not new to the scene.

[ey****]

45 minutes ago, little_red_92 said:

You assume that anything in BDSM is safe..... it isnt. only more or less safe.

Yep.  This is something that is important.

There's lines when it comes to risk management and mitigation.  Some of this can include knowing where you most certainly shouldn't strike, to having safety scissors on hand in a rope scene, to learning about cleaning and disinfectant.

Something is less safe not without a safeword (for example) but when it's carried out incorrectly - and that's why it's also important for both the Dom and sub to have knowledge on risk management.

[Phoenyx]

I believe what Cade is alluding to, is what we once called "Edge Play".  That term may still be in use, though I haven't heard it in recent years.  Edge Play isn't really about "no limits".  It's about knowing the limits, and pushing them ever-higher.  Hence, the "edge" in Edge Play.

I suspect that the more-recent, blanket use of the term, "No Limits" is the source of the confusion.  Edge players are being lumped-in with newbies who show callous disregard---thanks to careless semantics.

[cautiousswitch]

23 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Yep.  This is something that is important.

There's lines when it comes to risk management and mitigation.  Some of this can include knowing where you most certainly shouldn't strike, to having safety scissors on hand in a rope scene, to learning about cleaning and disinfectant.

Something is less safe not without a safeword (for example) but when it's carried out incorrectly - and that's why it's also important for both the Dom and sub to have knowledge on risk management.

I work in risk management and it is full of limits.  Not all limits are quantifiable by number.  Where to strike and where not to strike is limiting location; you can't assign a number to it but it is still a limit.  Expecting a partner to take the time to assess the risk before acting on an impulse is a form of limit.

As I said in an earlier post, some of this is semantics.  If someone told me that they don't do rope play without safety scissors nearby I would call it one of their limits, someone else would call it a rule.  Rules place limits on behaviour, so I would argue that it's the same thing.  Other people would disagree with that interpretation.  There may be some people whose greatest desire is to die during a BDSM scenario, everyone else has at least one limit not to die.  We build up from there, what other conditions would be unacceptable to exist at the end of the session.  If it seems like I'm grasping at straws with these examples it is only because they are things we would naturally expect; these are the things that I would consider "unspoken limits" in my previous post.  They exist, we just don't feel the need to discuss them because they are so obvious.

The disagreement between Cade and myself is really a question of whether the expectation that a partner isn't going to use the offer of no limits to carry things too far should be considered a limit or not.  I believe that he agrees that the expectation exists because he did mention that these relationships should be between people who are familiar with each other as well as mentioning that the dom/me isn't going to give orders that prevent the sub from serving them.  Are these limits or not? - semantics.  

It isn't a bad post with the exception of, as I stated before, a little more emphasis could have been placed on the fact that people shouldn't start such relationships without being familiar with each other.  It was followed up by several posts praising it, only one person expressed concerns and didn't go into details, all on the great bastion of illiteracy the internet.  Someone who doesn't understand that "no limits" does not mean "anything, any place, any time, any way" could miss the fact that these are not relationships you go into lightly.  I don't want to try and en*** my concept of limits on anyone or try to "win" the argument.  I do want to stir things up enough that the casual reader might think things through a little more or go back and read things a second time.  That has hopefully been accomplished.

 

[Cade]

4 hours ago, cautiousswitch said:

Give an example of a distinction between something being safe and something being unsafe where there is no limit?

Certainly, although do overlook if my response doesn't answer your query. I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of this question within the context of the topic.

Let's first assume that this is an established "no limit" o/p; this is important to consider as it reflects the concept of consent and awareness of the expectations of the dynamic. First distinction: shared understanding of the dynamic and mutual risk awareness, leading to, consent of "no limits".

Since this is my theoretical slave, to use as I see fit, I plan a scene for this individual. The next distinct would be personal responsibility, or am I able and willing to accept the consequences for the activities I am creating for all individuals involved. Since I am the one creating this interaction, I must be able to carry the responsibility of the recourse of the event - which may merely be aftercare, but might go as far as being arrested, as our lifestyle does not enjoy the protection of civil liberties.

So, I find an activity that my personal responsibility covers, the next distinction might be best summed up by clear and obvious intent: if my motivation is negative, the scene will most likely flop anyhow. We do what we do to express our passion and love, to enjoy or be entertained, or to modify behavior; in any of these activities, emotions like anger, pent up frustration, and hostility can taint the scene I'm trying to create.

Of course, I must also consider if the activity is within my skillset - next distinction: do I know what I'm doing and the physical/mental ramifications. This may require me to learn new or updated methodologies and research the biological reactions. As stated, this is my slave trained to serve me, I'd likely avoid an activity that might prevent her from continuing to serve me. Likewise, in this distinction, the consideration of safety is addressed - can I create this scene in a manner of which I feel everyone participating can receive whatever medical attention may be necessary.

Of course, the short answer would have been simply stating common BDSM acronyms like RACK or PRICK.

Quid pro quo:

You meet a delightful female rigger and really hit it off. After a suitable time of conversation, you both decide to venture a rope scene. She listens to your limits (which might include sex on a first "date") and safewords, and assures you that they are acceptable. You meet in a private location as she has seemed safe and respectful so far, and the play starts off fine with some rope bondage. However, once she has you bound, she decides she is going to have sex with you anyway, and because you're restrained, does. You try to remind her of your limits and even use your safewords to no avail. You report her after, but in her police interview, she reports you did consent to sex and never used your safeword, creating a "he said-she said" situation that truly never allows for a proper resolution.

At what point do you realize that your limits and safewords are only illusionary, that an individual that is going to take advantage of a person is going to do that whether you have extensive limits and safewords or no limits? And more over, if you can realize this, why is it so hard to accept that good people might also desire no limits dynamics - as showcased in this community for more years than I know? 

Why is it wrong to not only teach newbies how dangerous no limits may be AND teach of the history and dynamics within this community that do strive for no limits?

---

In BDSM jargon, maybe "no limits" more over represents the dynamic in which someone desires to truly trust and respects someone so much, that they would willing to endure anything for them - even invest many years to be trained to do so. I sort of feel like this is the point of this community, and has been around since its start in some form. This dynamic can be consented to, it can be done safely and successfully. But, it's not for everyone, and like every type of relationship, from the most missionary monogamous vanilla to the edgiest lewd kink, there is a risk of coming across those wanting to do you harm.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Cade
Word change

[cautiousswitch]

17 minutes ago, Cade said:

Certainly, although do overlook if my response doesn't answer your query. I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of this question within the context of the topic.

 

The point of my question was that safety usually implies limits.  We set speed limits so that people will drive more safely, etc.  Setting the limits doesn't mean that they will be followed but their intent is to try and make things more safe.

In your first example the person you describe is putting limits on themself.  You're calling them distinctions, but really they are asking themself how far are they willing to go.  The person serving them probably has some expectation that their master/mistress will go through this process and set sane restrictions on what will occur.  Again, limits aren't specifically spelled out but they do exist in a manner of speaking.  Asking someone to take the time to think things through rather than just doing the first thing that pops into their head is itself a limit. How well would this process go if the dominant were drunk? No alcohol or *** is a common enough limit that most people don't even think of it as a limit.  I would still argue that limits exist in this situation.

Your second example is a trust issue.  Stating limits won't guarantee they will be followed any more than the expectations of the sub in the first example are guaranteed to be fulfilled.  The sub who said no sex had a reason for it.  Breaking their trust didn't make that reason go away.  The existence of the limit didn't protect them even if its intent was to do so; he needed to set better limits on choosing a partner. 

The dominant in the second example was an asshole who didn't respect the sub.  The dominant in the first example showed respect for their sub.  In both cases the nature of the respect was shown through limits - the asshole flagrantly ignored agreed upon limits, the good dominant had lines they were unwilling to cross based on what they thought was best for the them and their sub. 

[Cade]

9 hours ago, cautiousswitch said:

In your first example the person you describe is putting limits on themself.

We will never agree on this. Where you see "limits", I see the considerations made to create any scene I desire. Perhaps it's because where as you work in risk management (I'm guessing, in a non-BDSM related industry) and a limited awareness of no limit dynamics (never having experienced this type of dynamic first-hand), I am on the opposite end, having had two successful lifestyle slaves that would do anything to ensure my happiness. Although, I can certainly see how you might see protocol as limits, much like one might argue a car is a boulder. Sure, both may be inanimate at times, but one is the vehicle of movement, the other a dead weight. That's why protocol isn't a limit, and we simply do not use those two terms synonymously within this community.

Protocol is the mechanism of growth and achievement, while limits are the place where things stops. But, there is one point I will agree with you on - my slave trusts in my adherence to our protocol in order for me to be able to recreate any desire I may have of her. she knows, without doubt, that I will go through my considerations while creating a scene, making sure each are addressed and accommodated before simply forcing her to endure. Will she be ***d to endure once the considerations are complete? You better damn well believe it! Haha.

9 hours ago, cautiousswitch said:

Your second example is a trust issue.

Definitely. The issue of trusting that words are going to keep you safe. Because let's face, people that intend to take advantage or harm you are adaptive - everytime a new safety procedure comes into play is when they are learning how to supercede it. They embody the ideal partner, and unfortunately too often, their true natures are exposed too late. The same perpetrator that would negatively use their partner with no limits would disregard limits and safewords to get what they want. This is sadly true outside BDSM, as well.

Again, not having limits isn't the danger - it's how it's used.

---

Wrapping up, you can obviously think anything you want about no limit dynamics like owner/property and TPE/TAT. You can believe they are unsafe or not real, using all the information from your risk management job and never having experienced it for yourself while ignoring people that actually live it. I believe there is a word for that, although it eludes me right now. But much like the bird in a cage it can barely spread its wings trying to tell the free bird how to fly, you really can't imagine the reality.

My most sincere hope for you is that one day you meet a person so amazing, so honest, so consistent to their beliefs, so passionate for their life and lifestyle, that you would be willing to do anything for that person - and get the chance to experience this world in the most positive way. Thank you for the discussion.