RE: Contracts

RE: Contracts (Full Version)

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

Message

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:01:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually the meanings of words evolve in different ways. Sometimes there are entirely new uses for a word that come into use, other times it is just a shade of meaning. People involved with different subcultures often have varying nomenclature for what it is that they are doing.. it is rather common and not unique to WIITWD. Again, new and different nomenclature is not the same as redefining existing terms. John

juliaoceania -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:02:31 PM)
Actually I learn a lot from Rover, I hope he doesn't stop posting on threads and using his disagreement with the premise of them as a launching pad to expressing a different view of things.. this is how I learn personally, by reading people that do not necessarily agree. I also did not read Rover as posting anything derogatory to the OP, perhaps I missed that one? The OPer seems very adept at defending herself on other threads that I have read, personally insulting and flaming with the best of us.. she hardly needs any protection.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissHarlet Perhaps if you dont like someones style of questions and responses you could just ignore the threads they start and then you wouldnt be frustrated by that person and there would be no need for flameing them and the rest of us wouldnt have to read thru the crap and everyone would be happier and we would all learn more. That way you wont have to worry about a OPs age or intellect or anything and the OP can ask the questions in their own way and perhaps get answers from people that are willing to give them the benefit of their experience or knowlege. I'm sorry, was this directed at me? John

juliaoceania -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually the meanings of words evolve in different ways. Sometimes there are entirely new uses for a word that come into use, other times it is just a shade of meaning. People involved with different subcultures often have varying nomenclature for what it is that they are doing.. it is rather common and not unique to WIITWD. Again, new and different nomenclature is not the same as redefining existing terms. John I do not see expanding the meaning of "contract" to being any agreement that people feel bound to emotionally, physically, or legally, to be a big stretch of that word... and I say this as someone that has no need of a slave contract... I agree with aileen on that one... too sterile for me

MissHarlet -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:08:21 PM)
Im sorry if my post seemed aimed at Rover .. it was actually for all of those complaining about the OP...

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not see expanding the meaning of "contract" to being any agreement that people feel bound to emotionally, physically, or legally, to be a big stretch of that word... and I say this as someone that has no need of a slave contract... I agree with aileen on that one... too sterile for me I'm not suggesting that you should view it any differently. Simply engaging in a running discussion on the subject. And I don't think that any of the terms we redefine (and misuse, in my opinion) in and of themselves is an enormous stretch. But the cumulation of many redefined terms tends to give BDSM the flavor of Dungeons & Dragons in my opinion. John

subtee -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:13:21 PM)
OK, but can we all just please agree that the word (flinch) "bootylicious" should never have been allowed in the public vernacular, and certainly not in a dictionary?

MistressOfGa -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:13:34 PM)
quote: But the cumulation of many redefined terms tends to give BDSM the flavor of Dungeons & Dragons in my opinion. I agree.

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:16:03 PM)
Fast reply: There are other uses of the word "contract" that wouldn't be legally binding. If someone is suicidal, a therapist can have them sign a contract that they will follow certain directions if they think they are in danger. Also, substance abusers sign abstinance contracts. None of those are technically legally binding, but show an intent to follow a certain pattern of behavior, and an awareness of what will happen if the agreement is broken. Are they formal contracts? No. Just something that's been agreed on, and then written down. So maybe that's a misuse of the word as well. But that usage isn't limited to this world, not at all.

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlie310 Fast reply: There are other uses of the word "contract" that wouldn't be legally binding. If someone is suicidal, a therapist can have them sign a contract that they will follow certain directions if they think they are in danger. Also, substance abusers sign abstinance contracts. None of those are technically legally binding, but show an intent to follow a certain pattern of behavior, and an awareness of what will happen if the agreement is broken. Are they formal contracts? No. Just something that's been agreed on, and then written down. So maybe that's a misuse of the word as well. But that usage isn't limited to this world, not at all. Those contracts are binding in that there are consequences for violating them (as opposed to simply being able to walk away). The law is but one method by which one may be "bound" to a contract. John

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:22:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee OK, but can we all just please agree that the word (flinch) "bootylicious" should never have been allowed in the public vernacular, and certainly not in a dictionary? I will consider agreement... after an exhaustive study. John

juliaoceania -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:26:29 PM)
I have a family member that has signed contracts for treatment plans, there are no repercussions for not following through on these "contracts"... not legally or otherwise. My UM has signed "contracts" through his school days as promises of a course of action that he will follow through on. He has signed agreements that he will follow certain rules... none of these are legally binding.

subtee -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:31:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: subtee OK, but can we all just please agree that the word (flinch) "bootylicious" should never have been allowed in the public vernacular, and certainly not in a dictionary? I will consider agreement... after an exhaustive study. John "Exhaustive study." Hmmmm...Empirical? Experiential? Do you have a working theory and beginning hypothesis? Does this study involve Beyonce? Too many questions? No?

carlie310 -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Those contracts are binding in that there are consequences for violating them (as opposed to simply being able to walk away). The law is but one method by which one may be "bound" to a contract. John 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? 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.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover But the cumulation of many redefined terms tends to give BDSM the flavor of Dungeons & Dragons in my opinion. Hmmm...I think it might have more to do with those calling themselves "Lord Master Mighty Dom" and the dearly departed CastleRealm, but I get your point. Is this a problem? BDSM is a fringe culture, much like the RPG community, and ithas it's own jargon, as they do. Again, I don't see a misuse of the word "contract" when applied to my documents, perhaps it is a stretch in the legal sense, but then so is the use of the title "esquire" when following a lawyers name. 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. It's been an interesting conversation, never the less, but I don't know if anyone has moved at all from their starting viewpoints. Taggard

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have a family member that has signed contracts for treatment plans, there are no repercussions for not following through on these "contracts"... not legally or otherwise. Then by definition it was not a contract. quote: My UM has signed "contracts" through his school days as promises of a course of action that he will follow through on. He has signed agreements that he will follow certain rules... none of these are legally binding. And if there was no consequence if he did not follow through on that course of action, then it was not a contract. If his lack of following through might risk something like detention, then it is a contract. John

Rover -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee "Exhaustive study." Hmmmm...Empirical? Experiential? Do you have a working theory and beginning hypothesis? Does this study involve Beyonce? Too many questions? No? Yes. John

MistressOfGa -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:36:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have a family member that has signed contracts for treatment plans, there are no repercussions for not following through on these "contracts"... not legally or otherwise. My UM has signed "contracts" through his school days as promises of a course of action that he will follow through on. He has signed agreements that he will follow certain rules... none of these are legally binding. Julia, When I was younger, I had a foster sister who entered into a treatment agreement while staying at the state mental facility. One of the stipulations of the agreement is that if she harmed herself (self mutilation) she would have to enter the "locked" unit and give up her room on the "open" unit. It was a big deal for her to have the freedom of the open unit, so when she did cut on herself, she was transported "downstairs" to the locked ward. That was her "punishment" for breaking her contract with the treatment team. I don't suppose all mental hospitals are the same, but in this case there was a consequence to be had. Legally binding? Maybe not, but there was a consequence for breaking the contract.

Jeffff -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:39:01 PM)
Tag, people seldom are moved from their original position....the best you can hope for a respectful disagreement. Jeff

juliaoceania -> RE: Contracts (1/11/2008 2:40:48 PM)
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". If one disregards their slave contract they can have repercussions too, such as the loss of the relationship. 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.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125