|[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, , 7, 8, 9, 10 ]|
|Subject: Limits in BDSM and Matriarchy|
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Date Posted: 11:30:16 03/19/15 Thu
One of the moderators here raised the issue of 'limits' in the BDSM ritual setting and,by extension, in a Matriarchal Setting.
Let me preface by saying I have a prejudice: I am a very strong supporter of Absolute Matriarchal Monarchy (or at least Oligarchy). Consequently, in terms of a Matriarchy, I believe that "limits" are an absurd concept. The power of Womyn is absolute and total.
But in the ritualised setting of BDSM (which I often equate to a pyscho-drama emulation of the reality)
"Limits" generally refers to "how much the submissive can or will take." Typically before a "session" begins the sub and the Domme negotiate the "limits" with the use of such things as "safe words" and "no-go zones".
The most typical and generally accepted limits are: "no child sex", by which is meant not involving minors in the sexual play. I think this is both moral and essential.
This "limit" becomes confused by those engaged in "age-play" or even "forced regression" , "forced baby play" where the submissive is rendered, treated,reduced to or confined to a pre-consensual age-role bringing about submission.
The other commonly accepted "limits" are "no animals and no pee/scat".
The former is often based on an argument that "dumb animals", like pre-consensual children, should not be "forced" into inter-species sexual activities. I have to say I know horses and dogs who have greater capacity to comprehend sexuality than many male humans, so I am not sure where I stand. I would have to ask if cross breeding with Neanderthals would be inclusive, or if this restriction would prohibit sexual contact with alien life forms.
Again this "limit" becomes quickly confused in the case of "pet play" wherein the submissive is rendered into animal form (dog, pig, worm, etc.) and even more confused by those who call themselves "furries". (role playing in animal costumes)
And finally the "toilet-centric limit" is the consequence of the obvious "natural" revulsion to bodily waste products which, by no means a human universal, is commonly believed to be "natural".
I am Wiccan so I adhere to the admonition that "All Acts of Love and Pleasure are Her Rituals". Others are free to hold different opinions, of course.
Beyond these, "limits" usually represent the outer-extreme of what the sub feels itself capable of enduring, experiencing or suffering. They range from "limits" such as "no marks, no permanent marks" to "no physical contact". I have even encountered "limits" such as: "no play with Gentiles", "no play involving animal products" (which eliminated leather attire and whips).
Obviously, in every case, a "limit" is designed to serve as a physical and moral barrier beyond which the Dominant is constrained. It is something that the submissive imposes on the Dominant, a restriction, a priori.
The concept of "limits" has given rise to distinctions between "pets" and "slaves" and "subs" , each of which giving or removing some putative "rights" to or from the submissive. Given my personal prejudice stated at the beginning, I find these distinctions arbitrary and contrived.
But specifically in the case of male submissives, the topic of "limits" takes on some peculiarly Patriarchal twists. I will just mention a few a jump-off points for further discussion:
Not a few male "subs" believe that they are at their "best" by being "macho", or "strong", "silent", "brave", etc (all supposedly male attributes). Often these subs market their services as "no limits" as a way of attracting Matriarchal attention and to egrandize themselves as somehow more "masculine" than other "wimpy subs".
I have yet to meet a male submissive with "no limits".In fact I continue a tradition started by the famous Mistress Lana White, of offering free sessions to any sub who actually has "no limits". So far none have left "a session" without paying, and I promise I do not have the "unbreakable" ones locked in some dungeon to skew the sample. (laughs)
Alternatively I find the discussion of "limits" to be somewhat tedious drama. An ethical "session Mistress" should instinctively "know" and "observe" the natural breaking points of various human spirits and not trangress those boundaries without just cause.
And I further find the "contest of wills" between Mistress and the "macho" submissive as just another permutation of the Patriarchal Imperative, turning the sacred ritual of submission to Dominance into a showcase of intrinsic "male superiority".
In my opinion, in a true Matriarchy, a male has no rights and consequentially, no limits. It is not a subject of negotiation, rather a case for noblesse oblige. Males are fortunate if the Womyn in power afford it any status recognition at all. It is a state in direct opposition to and contrary to the Patriarchal Order, in which Womyn are afforded no rights by definition.
For those who wish to disparage the claims of Womyn's oppression, I merely need to refer them to one of the most backwards and primitive social orders, The Euro-American Social Model. In this Model, control over one's own Uterus is a matter of heated public debate and legislation. In a strictly Matriarchal Model, the decision to castrate a male or not would be a matter of draconian legislation as well. Instead of the default being child-bearing Woymen, the default would be sterile and non-reproducing males.
You can take your pick, therefore, where you want the discussion of "limits" to begin and end.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
|Re: Limits in BDSM and Matriarchy||Bob R.||15:50:09 03/21/15 Sat|
|Re: Limits in BDSM and Matriarchy||slave joanna||13:22:20 04/13/15 Mon|
|Re: Limits in BDSM and Matriarchy||Joanne||00:51:28 04/15/15 Wed|