|
QnofH3arts -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/11/2004 1:20:58 AM)
|
Being unable to work for several days has placed entirely too much time at my disposal. I sat here tonight reading each and every post on this thread. Rather than responding to each post that touched a cord in me, though, I will instead respond to the original query, based upon thoughts inspired by the rest of the posts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dark~angel
I have been following the threads on 'contracts'. And I wished to ask people opinions on them. I have seen what people know about them, and all the legalities... but I am more interested in what people actually think about them. I have a really hard time trying to work out why slaves would want or even be allowed a contract?... To Me one seems to nulify the other? Contracts between Dominants who have bought and sold slaves(consensually) make some kind of sense (to me), But not between a slave and Dominant.
I do not wish to make a judgement... this is just my own personal view and I really would be interested in hearing from others and discussing it.
You can only do what works for you. You form that basis of behaviors/requirements/needs upon your judgement of others. We are all "guilty" of judging. It is the only way we CAN determine what is best for ourselves. You can say/believe "I do not need/want/desire a contract with a Dominant because I am a slave," and you can believe you do not have one, written, verbal or otherwise. However, the reality is that there is always an "agreement" - (read "contract") because you have thought or said it doesn't exist in your relationship. The reality is that you CAN walk away, you CAN say no, you CAN and DO make choices even when you supposedly give up your right to make choices. You might not like the consequences of reality's safewords and escape clauses, but then, you chose not to have a contract that allowed you gentler caveats. How's that for a conundrum?
Another perspective on the Dominant/slave contract: Before you sign it, you may have a slave mentality, but you are slave to no one but your own desires. Upon placing your signature on that bottom line, you commit yourself to an hour, a week, or a lifetime of enslavement to another's desires. It's all in the wording. A contract does not have to allow you safewords, escape clauses or other wording that would allow you to feel any measure of control. It may simply state that upon the signing of said contract, you surrender yourself. But be aware, as the above paragraph states, the reality is that you will always have safewords and escape clauses.
How many of us can live without the intrusion of reality? How many of us are independently wealthy to the point where we can own our own country, make our own laws and create our own reality? So much of WIITWD is based upon fantasy that I think sometimes people do lose sight of the real world. If you tell yourself that once you surrender yourself to a Dominant that you no longer have the right to make choices, then you are not living in the real world. However, in my experience, I have found people who live this lifestyle to be more intelligent and analytical than average and perhaps some simply seek the right words to make the their fantasy exist WITHIN reality. It's all semantics. Perhaps if some could stop thinking so much and simply BE, contentment might come a little easier.
My own personal preference: I prefer inspiration over and above contracts. Yet, I would not attempt to inspire someone's submission to Me without communication first, which is, of course, an implied contract. When I take on the responsibility of one who displays the nature of a slave, I am more enchanted by their responses to My dominance of them than I would be by their compliance with the wording of a written contract. To enthrall someone is so much more fulfilling to Me than to simply have someone fall to their knees at My feet because I demanded it in a contract. And, if I am unable to inspire their submission, to enthrall them, have I failed? Perhaps. Or perhaps the fit was not right between us and nothing I could have done would have worked, including the use of a formal written contract. That's just Me, though. I enjoy the challenge. Your mileage may vary.
And, by the by, I do prefer the term "thrall" to "slave". Since semantics has been such a strong force in this thread, I'll give Merriam-Webster's definitions:
Main Entry: thrall
Pronunciation: 'throl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thral, from Old English thræl, from Old Norse thræll
1 a : a servant slave : BONDMAN; also : SERF b : a person in moral or mental servitude
2 a : a state of servitude or submission <in thrall to his emotions> b : a state of complete absorption <mountains could hold me in thrall with a subtle attraction of their own -- Elyne Mitchell>
- thrall adjective
- thrall·dom or thral·dom /'throl-d&m/ noun
Main Entry: en·thrall
Variant(s): or en·thral /in-'throl, en-/
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): en·thralled; en·thrall·ing
Etymology: Middle English
1 : to hold in or reduce to slavery
2 : to hold spellbound : CHARM
- en·thrall·ment /-'throl-m&nt/ noun
Laura, Ms Laura, Queen, Mistress, Madame, Goddess or whatever else I might *inspire* you to call Me,
(just don't call Me late for dinner!)
|
|
|
|
