RE: Contracts

RE: Contracts (Full Version)

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

Message

takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/9/2008 10:44:24 PM)
Spousal support is not a requirement by lawThe law doesn't care if you support your ex wife or not, but it does \try to insure that you support the children you have. .

BitaTruble -> RE: Contracts (1/9/2008 10:44:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover BDSM has a sad history of manipulating and prostituting terms to suit "feelings" rather than realities. John While my Websters Encyclopedic dictionary did use the term 'binding', The Oxford American doesn't use the word 'binding' and it uses the term 'especially' as opposed to something like exclusively when speaking about 'enforced by law', so according to that dictionary, contract could fit within a BDSM relationship. contract: 1 - written or spoken agreement esp: one enforceable by law - pg 165 Is that BDSM's fault or is it that using dictionary's written for folks outside the realm of BDSM to explain/define wiitwd is so subjective because there is no standard, universal truth (Big Book of BDSM) and we sorta have to make things up as we go along? When it comes to inter-personal relationships, I'm for the latter as opposed to the former. Celeste edited for clarity

AquaticSub -> RE: Contracts (1/9/2008 10:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07 Spousal support is not a requirement by lawThe law doesn't care if you support your ex wife or not, but it does \try to insure that you support the children you have. . Uh... yeah it is actually. Like child support, one can sue for it and if it is awarded it is enforced like child support.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Contracts (1/9/2008 10:57:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07 Spousal support is not a requirement by lawThe law doesn't care if you support your ex wife or not, but it does \try to insure that you support the children you have. . That is not universally true. Some states virtually require spousal support/alimony, while other states (e.g., Texas) make only minimal provision.

takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 12:23:56 AM)
i didn't know that. thanks.

laurell3 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 12:29:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07 i didn't know that. thanks. Stop espousing legal advice, you're not good at it. Wouldn't that constitute putting in your two cents when you didn't know what you were talking about? (quoting you of course).

ksub4u -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 5:01:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07 Spousal support is not a requirement by lawThe law doesn't care if you support your ex wife or not, but it does \try to insure that you support the children you have. . You haven't a clue here ... this is a statement made as fact based on nothing. Now if you were merely threw a "I don't believe ..." or "I'm not sure, but ..." in there - I'd have no argument with it. Hell, make it a question if you're not sure what you're talking about. [8\|]

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 5:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble [While my Websters Encyclopedic dictionary did use the term 'binding', The Oxford American doesn't use the word 'binding' and it uses the term 'especially' as opposed to something like exclusively when speaking about 'enforced by law', so according to that dictionary, contract could fit within a BDSM relationship. contract: 1 - written or spoken agreement esp: one enforceable by law - pg 165 I don't have access to the Oxford Dictionary, so I cannot comment upon what is and isn't there. quote: Is that BDSM's fault or is it that using dictionary's written for folks outside the realm of BDSM to explain/define wiitwd is so subjective because there is no standard, universal truth (Big Book of BDSM) and we sorta have to make things up as we go along? In my opinion, it is BDSM's fault. There are plenty of terms that mean exactly how BDSM uses them, but they don't "feel" quite as "good". The fault does not lie in the terms available in a dictionary or their meanings. The fault lies in those who choose to use terms to mean what they do not mean. I have no issue with making things up as we go along, but I do have an issue with manipulating and prostituting those things that have already been made up and have an established meaning. That's not making anything up... it's stealing and fibbing about it. John

OmegaG -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 6:56:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: takenbyjohnr07 Spousal support is not a requirement by lawThe law doesn't care if you support your ex wife or not, but it does \try to insure that you support the children you have. . Uh... yeah it is actually. Like child support, one can sue for it and if it is awarded it is enforced like child support. In some states spousal support may not be awarded (like Michigan). However when a marriage disolves there is community property to sort out and for a wife that was married for over 10 years an entitlement to SS benefits based on the husband's income (provided it was the greater income of course). Most states have disregarded their common law marraige laws (maybe all of them) and an un-married partner can sue for properties and monies when the partnership desoves, but it's harder to prove the interaction between the parties.

OmegaG -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:01:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble [While my Websters Encyclopedic dictionary did use the term 'binding', The Oxford American doesn't use the word 'binding' and it uses the term 'especially' as opposed to something like exclusively when speaking about 'enforced by law', so according to that dictionary, contract could fit within a BDSM relationship. contract: 1 - written or spoken agreement esp: one enforceable by law - pg 165 I don't have access to the Oxford Dictionary, so I cannot comment upon what is and isn't there. quote: Is that BDSM's fault or is it that using dictionary's written for folks outside the realm of BDSM to explain/define wiitwd is so subjective because there is no standard, universal truth (Big Book of BDSM) and we sorta have to make things up as we go along? In my opinion, it is BDSM's fault. There are plenty of terms that mean exactly how BDSM uses them, but they don't "feel" quite as "good". The fault does not lie in the terms available in a dictionary or their meanings. The fault lies in those who choose to use terms to mean what they do not mean. I have no issue with making things up as we go along, but I do have an issue with manipulating and prostituting those things that have already been made up and have an established meaning. That's not making anything up... it's stealing and fibbing about it. John We chose to have a written agreement at this time. When we get to a place where we desire permanancy we will have a covenant. We both get pretty hung up on words so this was what we were comfortable with.

takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:04:17 AM)
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.

camille65 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:06:11 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. I'm lost. I did not see how/where Omega insulted you?

RCdc -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:18:00 AM)
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.

RCdc -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:30:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Stop espousing legal advice, you're not good at it. Wouldn't that constitute putting in your two cents when you didn't know what you were talking about? (quoting you of course). I will quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall - I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That goes for yourself and for taken. So far I have kept my mouth firmly shut, however when it impacts MY reading pleasure and what I having to shift though I am gonna rant - I am getting pretty tired of trying to read threads at the moment and coming across shitty remarks posted to taken. It's pretty insulting to the people who have bothered to answer the threads in a open manner and share their thoughts when I have to trawl through the crap of people who are ganging up. It's getting really childish. There is truth in what she said even if you and some others decide to throw that aside. It's a waste of mine and other people time who come to read the threads and get feedback and people thoughts watching people try and one up her constantly. I will probably be told I am wrong, don;t read, blahblahblah - so don't bother, heard it all before. But hey, we (generic)might not always be right, we(generic)might not like what people say but tough and we(generic) get to say its shit hey. But seriously - witch hunts just make me: yawn the.dark.

takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:34:04 AM)
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.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:36:45 AM)
[sm=applause.gif]

takenbyjohnr07 -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:37:33 AM)
Like i have told you before. You are the warmest and brightest light i know. thank you for allowing me to bask in it.

MissHarlet -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:47:07 AM)
Ditto

Jeffff -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:49:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Stop espousing legal advice, you're not good at it. Wouldn't that constitute putting in your two cents when you didn't know what you were talking about? (quoting you of course). I will quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall - I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That goes for yourself and for taken. So far I have kept my mouth firmly shut, however when it impacts MY reading pleasure and what I having to shift though I am gonna rant - I am getting pretty tired of trying to read threads at the moment and coming across shitty remarks posted to taken. It's pretty insulting to the people who have bothered to answer the threads in a open manner and share their thoughts when I have to trawl through the crap of people who are ganging up. It's getting really childish. There is truth in what she said even if you and some others decide to throw that aside. It's a waste of mine and other people time who come to read the threads and get feedback and people thoughts watching people try and one up her constantly. I will probably be told I am wrong, don;t read, blahblahblah - so don't bother, heard it all before. But hey, we (generic)might not always be right, we(generic)might not like what people say but tough and we(generic) get to say its shit hey. But seriously - witch hunts just make me: yawn the.dark. D&d........you know how much I enjoy you but I feel the need to point out that any problems people have had with taken is her inability to accept any sort of disagreement with something she posts. She has been as insulting as she has been insulted..........my opinion only of course..:) I really have to stop all this serious stuff Jeff

Mercnbeth -> RE: Contracts (1/10/2008 7:49:50 AM)
Deferring to the absolutism of the 'experts' and lifestyle police, our 'Magna Carta' (look up the literal meaning), was and is important to us. The process of its creation was educational and discussion generating. The final agreement was marked with ritual and celebration. It continues to be a 'living' document. Rules set then have evolved to reflect changes in our life and lifestyle. It represents our 'dogma' not 'THE' dogma. A framed version hangs in a prominent place of our home. Its impossible for us to care less about someone else's validation about our contract. It is important to us. It was never intended to be a 'legal' document. Our document represents where we were, where we want to be, and where we want to go. You think you can remember the details and draw upon the emotions felt during the 'honeymoon' period; but you can't. The words in the contract capture some of those feelings; sometimes in the words, sometimes in the spaces between them.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875