RE: Contracts

RE: Contracts (Full Version)

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

Message

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlie310 Okay, here's where I expose my ignorance. . .for those who are in D/s relationships the contracts, aren't there consequences for violating them? Or is that not part of the contract? There are consequences other than walking away without the contract, why wouldn't they be available with the contract? The consequences incured in such an agreement are purely consensual in nature. They are not bound to them. If they so choose, they may walk away entirely without consequence. quote: speaking more generally. . . One contract that I do see a need for is for when a simulated rape-scene is being discussed. I would think that such a scene could be very risky for the Dom without one. As TDW said up-thread, showing this to the DA could make a big difference if someone were to see/hear what was going on & call the cops. Anything, including an email, can be used to demonstrate that someone consensually participated in a legal role play. John

MistressOfGa -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Tag, people seldom are moved from their original position....the best you can hope for a respectful disagreement. Jeff I would be open to changing how I view something, if presented with enough facts and evidence to support someone else's position. I am not that set in my old ways <g>

MissHarlet -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:42:09 PM)
I think we can get very lost in what we call things, be it contract, agreement,covenant, etc. but for me it is not a contract without consequences ..... and that should be spelled out in the contract... there should be no surprizes. Contracts may not be legally binding but they can be binding in the heart or integrity of the participants.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty I think what I am saying is that your line of thought comes across as much more of a nit-pick, but you state it in such a way as to make it seem a true complaint about the lifestyle in general. In the case of the specific term "contract", it's just a nit-pick. But then, I come from a long line of ancestral nit-pickers. Some have even picked royal nits. But in the case of the cumulative effect of redefined terms, it's a genuine complaint. Though not one to which I give a great deal of thought unless provoked. :) John

MistressOfGa -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:47:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissHarlet I think we can get very lost in what we call things, be it contract, agreement,covenant, etc. but for me it is not a contract without consequences ..... and that should be spelled out in the contract... there should be no surprizes. Contracts may not be legally binding but they can be binding in the heart or integrity of the participants. I agree and suppose that is what we have been talking about all the while. A contract between a dominant and his/her slave is binding between the two of them. It is written to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, the parties who signed it, knows the true meaning of it's content and no amount of "outside" influences can change that. Like I said, I now view contracts in a whole new light and this thread has helped to shed that light.

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:48:41 PM)
Most of the "non-legal" contracts are like that--able to be walked away from rather than suffer consequences. Certainly the school situations are; the child could transfer to another school. In the theraputic contracts, except for the example of someone in a rehab program, dismissing the patient is a typical consequence. If it isn't, the patient still has the option of terminating. If someone's in rehab of their own volition, rather than court-ordered, they can walk away as well. My point (yes! I have one!) is that if the BDSM world misuses this word, it's similarly misused in a variety of other contexts by the rest of the world as well. Over time, the usage becomes more acceptable, and ends up in the dictionary.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Minors cannot legally sign contracts, they are not enforceable under law. My point is that the school calls them "contracts" even though they are not legally binding. Your entire point is that a contract has to be legally binding, not that stepping outside of the contract causes "repercussions". Actually, that mistates my position. Which is that a contract must be binding; the law being just one method by which one can be bound. I made quite an effort to be clear on that point. quote: If one disregards their slave contract they can have repercussions too, such as the loss of the relationship. If one disregards their slave contract, they have already determined and expressed their desire to end the relationship. Therefore, I conclude that there are no consequences by which one is bound. quote: My point is that in society people refer to non-legally binding agreements as "contracts" all the time.. and technically these are just "agreements", but they use the word "contract" to make it sound more binding... and not only in BDSM circles. I cannot comment on such a broad, sweeping statement. I do not hear people refere to contracts like that all the time, if at all. But they may indeed be contracts even if they are not legally binding, provided they are bound by some other consequence (detention being one example for a UM). John

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:56:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlie310 My point (yes! I have one!) is that if the BDSM world misuses this word, it's similarly misused in a variety of other contexts by the rest of the world as well. Over time, the usage becomes more acceptable, and ends up in the dictionary. No one, including BDSM, has cornered the market on misuse of anything. But my parents taught me decades ago that it wasn't ok to do, just because Timmy was doing it. John

subtee -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:03:28 PM)
Timmy is in the well... Which is oddly a rather apt metaphor. How did Lassie convey these messages? Signs. Signs for humans include words and they mean nothing--not a single thing--if we don't agree on their meaning. That's why it's not really nit-picking...it's important.

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover If one disregards their slave contract, they have already determined and expressed their desire to end the relationship. Therefore, I conclude that there are no consequences by which one is bound. Two questions about that, if you'll humor me. I realize at the outset that they will sound condescending, but they are very honest questions. Plus, I'm enjoying the debate ;-) First, I know that every action of mine isn't based on something I've determined or a desire I have. I make mistakes, do things I shouldn't do and fail to meet my own expectations. I'm scatterbrained--I forget to do things that I would like to do, even important things . I'm human. So, I disagree with the conclusion that violating the contract means that the slave wants out. Second, that statement implies that the only consequence would be terminating the contract. But not every instance of violation should be termination. There could be minor offenses listed in the contract which would merit punishment, but not to the same scale. Of course, habitual violations would get anyone the boot. Again, I'm not trying to parse words, just get a better understanding.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover If one disregards their slave contract, they have already determined and expressed their desire to end the relationship. Therefore, I conclude that there are no consequences by which one is bound. Now this simply isn't so. My slave has a contract some three pages in length, if she disregards one section, it is not an expressed desire to end the relationship, just a disregard for one part of the contract. This very well could lead to my ending the relationship, if I felt strongly enough about the section violated, so there is a consquence. And those who sign the contract are bound by their word to uphold it. I guess I am still back at my first question, which was, how are they not contracts then? Taggard

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:13:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee Timmy is in the well... Which is oddly a rather apt metaphor. How did Lassie convey these messages? Signs. Signs for humans include words and they mean nothing--not a single thing--if we don't agree on their meaning. That's why it's not really nit-picking...it's important. You got all that from Lassie? What did you get from Gentle Ben and Flipper? Seriously, good point. John

MadRabbit -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Since it seems this hijacked truck of a thread is already a few miles down the road, I thought why not jump on and ride it a few miles. quote: Some other people obviously are and are trying to blacklist a persons name - and that is what it is amounting too. We can all remember a litany of profile names that have graced these boards. I think the last poster drawing similar disdain and discourse was 'Bob'. You have to remember what kind of site CM is. It comes up in an search for those seeking sadism/masochism. Where better, for a masochist to get 'beat up'? Is there a better method than the one being employed? Then again it could be another manifestation of the position I hold regarding this site. CM is a grad student/students project. Every so often they introduce another character to advance their thesis and manipulate the group dynamic. beth thinks it is some computer geeks with time on their hands who enjoy playing with us 'freaks'; who every so often take another hit and say; "okay, okay, okay, {puff puff - exhale} okay...Dig this. What if we create a 47 year old woman who asks remedial questions, and takes any response not starting with "I agree ..." as an attack? {puff puff - exhale} YEAH - that would be fun!" How difficult is it for that bait to not be taken by the sadists among us, especially those listed as 'submissive' in their profiles? Plural, because most have at least two profile persona's - right? Bob really had that shit coming though. The new version of the Internet troll doesn't have quite the same devilish charisma that he did which led people to actually listen to the misinformation and inaccurate facts he spewed as dogma in his attempts to posture himself as the Collarme.com Prophet of True BDSM. I kind of miss him though despite how dangerous he was on a forum that people are using for education.

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover No one, including BDSM, has cornered the market on misuse of anything. But my parents taught me decades ago that it wasn't ok to do, just because Timmy was doing it. John But that's the way language works, unless it's Latin. It's continually in a state of flux. Misusing a word to expand its meaning is well within the rules. I'm pretty sure that Mom and Dad wouldn't blink an eye here. (grin) ETA: Holy Toledo, I just got my first pair of handcuffs! Too bad they're virtual. . .

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlie310 Two questions about that, if you'll humor me. I realize at the outset that they will sound condescending, but they are very honest questions. Plus, I'm enjoying the debate ;-) Ditto. :) quote: First, I know that every action of mine isn't based on something I've determined or a desire I have. I make mistakes, do things I shouldn't do and fail to meet my own expectations. I'm scatterbrained--I forget to do things that I would like to do, even important things . I'm human. So, I disagree with the conclusion that violating the contract means that the slave wants out. That wasn't a question, but I'll play along anyway. :) Who would punish an honest mistake? Humans make mistakes, so that would be like punishing someone for being human. I suppose it would be clearer if I said "willful violation", though I assumed (shame on me) that even though we had not yet discussed the nature of the violation, there would be agreement on that point. *quote:* Second, that statement implies that the only consequence would be terminating the contract. But not every instance of violation should be termination. There could be minor offenses listed in the contract which would merit punishment, but not to the same scale. Of course, habitual violations would get anyone the boot. But they are not bound to those consequences in any manner beyond consent. They can be walked away from without consequence, if they so choose. If they are accepted, it is not because they are bound to them by anything other than choice (which is to say nothing at all). quote: Again, I'm not trying to parse words, just get a better understanding. I wouldn't be offended if you were parsing words. That's part of a good discussion. John

MadRabbit -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee Timmy is in the well... Which is oddly a rather apt metaphor. How did Lassie convey these messages? Signs. Signs for humans include words and they mean nothing--not a single thing--if we don't agree on their meaning. That's why it's not really nit-picking...it's important. I can understand the point both you and Rover are making. I can agree to a certain extent. I personally refrain heavily from using the word "slave" or "Owner" when attempting to explain my dynamic to someone who has never heard of a D/S or M/S relationship. Both communicate something foreign to what I am talking about. I don't like the word "contract" that typically tends to be associated with this little peice of paper I write and have found using it with potential partners to hinder communication as opposed to improve it. However, this argument tends to cross over into other areas of BDSM like having set definitions for the terms submissive, slave, dominant, and Master. At that point, this is when I start to disagree because I find the idea of having set definitions to these words to be limiting communication as opposed to improving it. These "labels" refer to human identities which cannot be juxtaposed in a linear fashion. But...hey...the argument about whether words can mean different things is as old as time. Even Alice and Humpty Dumpty got into it when the Looking Glass was written.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:30:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty Now this simply isn't so. My slave has a contract some three pages in length, if she disregards one section, it is not an expressed desire to end the relationship, just a disregard for one part of the contract. Meaning that she has determined the relationship and your authority is not as important as disregarding a section of your agreement. Now... what are you gonna do? quote: This very well could lead to my ending the relationship, if I felt strongly enough about the section violated, so there is a consquence. And those who sign the contract are bound by their word to uphold it. Being bound by my word until I choose to no longer be bound by it? That is the nature of consent, and not being bound at all. That is the value and purpose of a contract... to bind people to them beyond the whimsical nature of their consent. To bind them even when they no longer wish to be bound. quote: I guess I am still back at my first question, which was, how are they not contracts then? Because no one is bound to them by anything beyond their consent. There is no consequence to them. They have no authority without said consequence. John

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:31:24 PM)
Any consequence in a non-legally binding contract can be walked away from, though. Unless the legal authority is willing to back you up on something, how are you going to enforce it? And regarding the willful. . .I've done things that would & should be considered willful that weren't very thought out and instantly regretted. They were mistakes, failure to live up to commitments I'd made. To limit the Dom with only one consequence, termination, doesn't seem the best, most reasonable choice for the Dom to make, does it? (Thanks for letting me slide on the non-question question, BTW.)

Mercnbeth -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:32:52 PM)
quote: The new version of the Internet troll doesn't have quite the same devilish charisma that he did which led people to actually listen to the misinformation and inaccurate facts he spewed as dogma in his attempts to posture himself as the Collarme.com Prophet of True BDSM. I kind of miss him though despite how dangerous he was on a forum that people are using for education. MR, Difficult to maintain a persona long term. Acting isn't easy. We miss them because they didn't become boring. Besides an updated an improved troll model is always at hand representing their on version of the 'one true way'. I find it fun and is one of the more endearing things about CM. If they weren't here I'd have no distraction from work.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 3:41:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlie310 Any consequence in a non-legally binding contract can be walked away from, though. Unless the legal authority is willing to back you up on something, how are you going to enforce it? Because people can exercise authority granted to them by means other than the "contract". A good example is a parent and UM that sign a contract saying the UM will be home by midnight or be grounded. The parent's right to ground the UM is not based upon the contract, or its legal standing. quote: And regarding the willful. . .I've done things that would & should be considered willful that weren't very thought out and instantly regretted. They were mistakes, failure to live up to commitments I'd made. To limit the Dom with only one consequence, termination, doesn't seem the best, most reasonable choice for the Dom to make, does it? I believe I already stated my opinion about mistakes, though I don't have much room for "willful mistakes" in my relationships. Still, any consequence short of termination is a viable option, but that does not change the fact that accepting the consequence (no matter what it may be) is still consensual on the part of the submissive/slave. If they choose not to accept a consequence, one cannot be forced upon them (without risking jail time). John

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875