RE: Contracts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

RCdc -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 8:01:24 AM)

Jefffff - you know I have you as a secret (or rather not so secret) passion.
And I am not for one moment gonna make a call on anyones 'fault'.  However, from my viewpoint, if someone is constantly bombarded from day one, someones gonna get a bit tired and bite back.  Yeah and it feeds I know - and it grows and everyone ends up biting and it's all like some big piranah fest.
 
But the questions that are being asked and answered by some pretty cool peeps.  And to have to end up trawling through all the crap to get to the good stuff, and then know that the good stuff is getting lost in the crap kinda makes you not want to answer any good stuff.  I just personally think it sucks for people like Oside, or Master Fire, Mercnbeth or Taggard to contribute their thoughts only to have it kinda lost in alot of back biting.  I know it happens, I know I take the piss sometimes, but it's never personal.  But it's effecting my reading enjoyment and causing me to say well there isn't any point posting on this thread coz it's just gonna turn ugly, so I had to say something hey.
 
the.dark.



Jeffff -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 8:15:12 AM)

ok...we can't ALL just get along......but we can  move on...:)

Jeff



RCdc -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 8:18:33 AM)

Amen
(and an apology coz I think I added toooooo many 'f's - but sometimes it's too hard to stop! )
 
the.dark.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 8:25:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
There are plenty of terms that mean exactly how BDSM uses them, but they don't "feel" quite as "good".


John,

I really enjoy your posts...they always make me think.  I wanted to respond to your thoughts (well backed up with research and citations) yesterday, but felt that perhaps if I thought about it some more, and did my own research, I might be able to provide something a bit more worthy of the debate.

I think the major dissagreement we have is that you limit the definition of a contract to only those agreements that are "legally binding" while I don't see "legally binding" as a requirement.

Your useage of the word certainly has support, as does mine, but there is something incredibly arbitrary about your usage.  Let's say there is a jursidiction in this world where BDSM contracts are "legally binding", and let's say I take a boat from the USA (where they are not) though International Waters (where I am not sure what they are) to BDSMLandia (where they are).  Will my agreement have gone from being an agreement to being something in the middle to being a contract?  That is rather bizzare!

And what about slavery contracts from before the Civil War.  Certainly they are not legally binding today, but does that make them no longer contracts?  The law is fluid and, in all honesty, not very clearly defined and, again quite honestly, there are laws with which I do not agree and do not obey.  Why would I use the law to tell me what words to call my agreements, contracts and lists of expectations.

If I create a document that looks, smells and reads like a contract, calls itself a Contract, and is treated by all parties as if it were a legally binding contract, then why would I call it anything else?  Just because the current legal system in the jurisdiction where it is executed doesn't recognize it as legally binding?  That just takes too much power away from me, and I like my power.

If we can't use the word contract to describe something that is a contract in all ways but "legally binding" then we can not use the word owner or slave, for the same reasons.  Why are you picking this one word to draw such a line?

Taggard



KatyLied -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 8:33:33 AM)

quote:

ok...we can't ALL just get along......but we can move on...:)


I've decided to take the high road.  It's steep, but I have albuterol in hand.   [:)]



ksub4u -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 9:29:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

camille, I don't believe taken wasn't refering to Omega - people often forget that the post, posted to, isn't always the one refered to.
 
As for the point of alimony -  it isn't a 'right' neither in the states nor the US.  That's a bit of a myth that puts many people in deep shit when they divorce.  If one partner has a large income or assets, the court may award some form of recompence, but it isn't a right and shouldn;t be expected.  Alimony is NOT a requirement by law in many states or in the UK.  So I am backing taken on this one.
 
the.dark.


No, it's not a 'right' per se'.  Speaking only for my state, and having worked in family law, I know from whence I speak ... it all depends on the length of the marriage and the circumstances involved.  It certainly doesn't work like some people think - ongoing alimony for years and years.  But oftentimes the spouse who was the main support in the marriage is required to pay support for the other spouse, with calculations used to take into consideration the income of both parties.  If it's a long-term marriage, and the wife stayed home with kids (for e.g.), the wife will probably get a portion of the husband's retirement funds, to compensatae for the years she spent home raising the kids and putting aside her income potential.  It really does vary greatly in each case. 

If anyone is thinking of divorcing, separating, etc. - I'd highly advise knowing the laws within your state and finding out your responsibilities and what the state may require of /award to you. 



ksub4u -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 9:40:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07

Oh my goodness that is the thrid time that has happened to me in the last couple of days. i don't understand it. i reply to a specific post and someone else's name gets listed. i don't know what's going on. Thanks so much for telling me. I really aprreciat e iit.

My post was not at all direted to Omega. It was directed to someone else. further up. i hope i am not going senile.

Please accept my apologies.  


Probably not senile ... try using the 'quote' feature - it makes it easier to follow.



AquaticSub -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 9:50:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07

In my state spousal support is not a requirement. In some states it is , therefore depending on where you are is the law that you follow. So each of us are right. Sorry, but your insults are just as pointless as all your other insults that you love to make.  
 

Edited cause I figured out what was going on.

Taken... it's not an insult to tell someone they stink at something when they honestly do. You are really hyper-sensitive about what people say to you on this board. 



takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 9:53:58 AM)

somehow i end up screwing that up too.:)



BitaTruble -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 10:08:50 AM)




contract: 1 - written or spoken agreement esp: one enforceable by law - pg 165
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

I don't have access to the Oxford Dictionary, so I cannot comment upon what is and isn't there.



Okay, fair enough. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the definition I cited is actually in there and accurate with nothing added and nothing taken away. (I did cite the source and page number, so it's entirely checkable. If you like, I can even scan the page and mail it to ya. [:D])

Is it okay to use that definition and, if so, doesn't that mean that one can call their written BDSM agreement a contract? If not, why not?

If the source I cited actually exists (and I'm claiming, that it, in fact, does exist and I'm quite willing to prove it) then the rest of your arguement falls by the wayside because it's not BDSMer's manipulating anything. It's taking one of the definitions available to them and applying it to their personal relationship.

Celeste

edited to fix FUBAR'd quoting!

edited again because I don't know how to completely fix the FUBAR'd quoting! lol



MissHarlet -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 10:09:20 AM)

Stink is subjective ..... <EG> .... insults are not necessary anytime ... we can agree to disagree .. none of us are going to agree all of the time .. and that is what makes the boards interesting ... and tho at times I come into the discussion disagreeing .. the more I read the different answers .. the more I find my opinions being modified or totally changeing ... I get "set in my ways" at times .. and love a great discussion  and am proud that I can still learn .. and have an open mind that allows me to see the view point of others and that I can " chew it over and spit out what I dont agree with and keep what suits me "   now that is a visual that will not set well with most Im sure .. but blame it on my Southern roots lol



sirguym -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 10:39:54 AM)

Personally the contracts that I use are termed within the document as 'an Indenture', as the closest model I see for a consensual BDSM agreement is an 'Indenture for Bonded Labour', as used for many hundreds of years, in many places within the British (and other) Empires and territories.

I understand that the original workforce in Caribean plantations were white bonded labourers from Britain; England, Wales, Scotland and then Ireland), who'd contract several years of service to pay their passage. It is only when it was obvious most of them were dying of fever, etc. before their term of service was up, that importing slaves from Africa began.

I have actually lifted a few words and phrases from such indentures in my original draft, but the whole thing has been rewritten so many times very little of that survives. Yes, such contracts are now illegal just about everywhere; an added bonus!

Any other kind of agreement is subject to 'memory drift'; the two (or more) parties to the agreement will tend to remember the aspects that benefit them; and forget the more onerous responsibilities and duties that balance the benefits.

So for me an Indenture (which was often also called a Pact) is an essential tool to negotiate and sustain a D/s relationship.



takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 11:50:18 AM)

i had always viewed contracts as cold and unfeeling as i thought pre-nuptials, but i see that it can mean many different things and can be done in many different ways. It still isn't for us, but i'm happy for the people it does work for.



Leatherist -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 11:51:47 AM)

If one thinks they can put everything in a relationship down on a piece of paper-they are sadly deluded.



Morniel -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 2:07:01 PM)

What's wrong with a contract? Why is that different from a prenuptual agreement? Why is it any different than the signature on a marriage certificate (which in most states, implies as well as directly stating, contractual obligations).

Yes, as a matter of fact, we have all three of those things.  No matter how perfect a marriage/relationship may be, and no matter how long it lasts, there is always a possibility, however remote, that it will not continue.  Legal documents simply protect all parties, including offspring if any.

But then again, judging by the fact that the divorce rate is higher than the marriage rate, and extrapolating that to "unofficial" liasons which break up after three weeks or so.... A good many people don't seem to give a damn about putting some work into keeping their word, let alone working on and enhancing a relationship.

Just my tuppence, though.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 5:00:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

If one thinks they can put everything in a relationship down on a piece of paper-they are sadly deluded.


Yes, and that is exactly what everyone has said a contract is used for.  I know that once I write a contract,  I don't have to do anything, not even be there, for the relationship to work, because it is all down on that piece of paper.  Oh wonderful magical paper...

Taggard



OsideGirl -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 6:19:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07

Are they ever used by real time or married couples? i'm not sure why you would have a contact in the first place?
We're married and have been together for 8 years. We have a contract.

quote:

 Does that mean that you don't trust the other person to abide by what the two of you have already decided on when you discuss what each other wants and needs?
Nope, it's just written scenario of what each of us expects from the relationship and what we feel is acceptable or unacceptable. 

quote:

Also, if the contract is broken or if you don't have a contract each of you is free to walk away.
Kinda, sorta. It basically lays out what will end the relationship. We, however, have marriage on top of that, so it's alittle more complicated than just walking out.

quote:

 So my question is what purpose does a contract serve? Thanks
  It clearly spells out the basis of the relationship without things like, "Oh, I didn't tell you I was poly?"



ksub4u -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 6:39:08 PM)

quote:


So my question is what purpose does a contract serve? Thanks

It clearly spells out the basis of the relationship without things like, "Oh, I didn't tell you I was poly?"


I can easily see how it would be a great tool for communication.  It's like laying all your cards out on the table, discussing issues you may not even have thought of, and understanding where your partner stands.  It's certainly not necessary for everyone, but I can see how it would be helpful for some.  It kind of reminds me of the BDSM checklists - which are a good starting point especially for newbies to think about topics they never even considered. 



sweetnurseBBW -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 6:44:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07

Are they ever used by real time or married couples? i'm not sure why you would have a contact in the first place?
We're married and have been together for 8 years. We have a contract.

quote:

 Does that mean that you don't trust the other person to abide by what the two of you have already decided on when you discuss what each other wants and needs?
Nope, it's just written scenario of what each of us expects from the relationship and what we feel is acceptable or unacceptable. 

quote:

Also, if the contract is broken or if you don't have a contract each of you is free to walk away.
Kinda, sorta. It basically lays out what will end the relationship. We, however, have marriage on top of that, so it's alittle more complicated than just walking out.

quote:

 So my question is what purpose does a contract serve? Thanks
  It clearly spells out the basis of the relationship without things like, "Oh, I didn't tell you I was poly?"


Thank you. You said exactly what I was so I won't repeat what you said so well.



Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 6:48:58 PM)

Taggard, please understand that I'm not on some crusade to stop the usage of the term "contract" within BDSM.  If it hadn't come up as a topic, I wouldn't be motivated to bring it up myself.  Though it is a topic that has come up numerous times in various online and real time discussions in which I've participated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

I really enjoy your posts...they always make me think. 


Thanks, I genuinely appreciate that.  My style often implies to others that I'm motivated to convince others to my opinion.  But the truth is, I enjoy being made to think and am motivated to make others think as well (some more than others).
 
quote:


I think the major dissagreement we have is that you limit the definition of a contract to only those agreements that are "legally binding" while I don't see "legally binding" as a requirement.


Well... kinda.  My issue is that they are not "binding", with the law being one method by which one is bound.  They can be walked away from without consequence, and I don't see how that is binding.  There isn't any consequence to doing so.  I think most people consider that a "gentleman's agreement", but it hardly rises to the level of a "contract" (in my opinion, of course).

quote:


Your useage of the word certainly has support, as does mine, but there is something incredibly arbitrary about your usage.  Let's say there is a jursidiction in this world where BDSM contracts are "legally binding", and let's say I take a boat from the USA (where they are not) though International Waters (where I am not sure what they are) to BDSMLandia (where they are).  Will my agreement have gone from being an agreement to being something in the middle to being a contract?  That is rather bizzare!


I believe that as a matter of law they would only be legally binding if executed in a country in which such contracts were legal... though an attorney can correct me if I'm wrong.  But what is truly bizarre (ok, not bizarre but really silly) is that we have to enter into fantasy "what if" land in order to discuss a BDSM term.  I think that says volumes about the term and its usage.

quote:


And what about slavery contracts from before the Civil War.  Certainly they are not legally binding today, but does that make them no longer contracts? 


That makes them no longer valid contracts.  Correct as I understand the law.

quote:


The law is fluid and, in all honesty, not very clearly defined and, again quite honestly, there are laws with which I do not agree and do not obey.  Why would I use the law to tell me what words to call my agreements, contracts and lists of expectations.


I don't suggest that you refer to the law in order to define your language.  I believe that is the role of a dictionary.  BDSM has a sad history of redefining very simple terms in order to suit an emotional, even fantasy oriented, purpose.  We just happen to be picking on "contracts" at the moment, but many examples (such as "ownership" and "slave") are readily available.

quote:


If I create a document that looks, smells and reads like a contract, calls itself a Contract, and is treated by all parties as if it were a legally binding contract, then why would I call it anything else? 


Because it's not.  You can pretend that it's a winning lottery ticket, or notice that you've satisfied your mortgage if it makes you feel good.  But that won't be true either.

quote:


Just because the current legal system in the jurisdiction where it is executed doesn't recognize it as legally binding?  That just takes too much power away from me, and I like my power.


Well, yeah... the legal system has the discretion to determine what is and isn't legally binding.  But nobody is taking any power away from you to call it whatever you like.  And obviously, there are plenty of other folks who call such agreements "contracts" as well. 

quote:


If we can't use the word contract to describe something that is a contract in all ways but "legally binding" then we can not use the word owner or slave, for the same reasons.  Why are you picking this one word to draw such a line?


Actually, I'm not picking on this one word, it just happens to be the one brought up in this thread.  I feel the same way about any number of words, terms and concepts that are commonly in use within BDSM circles, including "owner" and "slave".  Just like contracts, people may act as if they are owners and slaves, but they're not.  It just makes us feel good.  Heck, they make me feel good as well.  But that doesn't make me blind to the fact that they're not literal uses of the terms.

John



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875