Escape clause (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

Nightlander -> Escape clause (2/18/2008 1:32:56 AM)

Recently, I became single again, and I've been doing a little research here, so next time, things will run a bit smoother. I'm getting good answers to my questions, and I've been running across issues that seem to be very common.

Again and again I see 24/7 submissives, or slaves, who are either released, or, more often, cheated on or betrayed. These girls (being straight, I generally only talk to female submissives, though I'm sure this is a male issue as well) are often kicked out, or they escape, with nothing more than a couple of suitcases. Sometimes they have family and friends to help them pick up the pieces, sometimes they don't.

I have some very strong opinions about relationships like these.

1- she should only stay because she is happy

2- she should only stay because the relationship is good for her

3- the Dominant is responsible for easing her transition into the relationship

4- the Dominant is responsible for easing her transition out of the relationship

My plan, for the next girl that gives herself to me, (though hopefully it is a happy and lasting relationship), is to set up an escape fund.

A certain portion of her income would go into a bank account, until she had accrued a significant ammount of money, enough to move out, deposit and several months rent someplace else. Regardless of love and devotion, sometimes things don't work out. And sometimes a "dominant" is really just a predator.

The Dominant shouldn't have access or control of the fund, because this is her escape. If she needs it.

5- she can leave any time she needs to

6- she will not stay because she has no place to go

7- the Dominant protects her, even from himself

I like this idea. I take my responsibilities as a Dominant very seriously. The question is- this escape clause, would it damage relationships or trust, if you were to move in with a Dominant/Master, and he insisted on setting up a way to get you out of the house?

Has anyone reading this had problems getting away?

Has anyone had an escape mechanism built into their relationship?

Do you think a submissive should insist on a clause like this in their agreement/contract?

I look forward to some interesting answers.

N.



probablyknowme -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 3:17:41 AM)

Sadly, I have seen many submissives who, when they were released, were left with absolutely nothing more than a suitcase. But then, I tend to think that was more her fault for not being more smart about taking care of herself.

I have seen numerous contracts that had exactly what you have suggested. If it had any impact on the relationships, it was a positive one, in that the submissive felt more protected and cared for by her Dominant. If a submissive is relocating to be with a Dominant, i.e. leaving her job, her home, her support system, then I think that it would be a very good idea for her to ask for this sort of thing in her contract.

Just my quarter's worth,
kat



sunshinemiss -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 3:30:29 AM)

I think it sounds very appropriate and smart.  Protecting the sub, protecting your peace of mind.... that's beautiful.  I think if a Dom did that with me, I would adore him for it.  It doesn't even have to be about a Dom dumping the girl... What if there is a significant change - his job transfers him, or hers transfers her?  What if the Dom dies?  What if something happens to a parent or family memeber and they need to be separated for practical reasons?

I don't think it has to be seen as a possible dumping... it could just be a "saving money for a rainy day" fund... And when a relationship ends, it starts pouring.  *smiles.



defiantbadgirl -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 4:04:43 AM)

The idea of an escape clause shows caring. That's never a turn off, in fact it's usually a turn on. If a woman is forced to stay with a man she isn't happy with, there is no relationship anyway. Nobody should have to stay somewhere they don't want to be.



MistressVnus -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 4:41:58 AM)

I think it's an awesome idea and one that would actually build trust.  What better way to show that you really do have your submissive's well being in mind, in all ways.
I believe the same as you.  I don't want someone to stay because they are my financial prisoner.  In fact, I've probably scared off a few potentials because I refused to be one that they turn over all their finances to.  I would expect a contribution to the household, and I could help them manage their money.  But if they wanted to leave, it was their's before they got here, and it's theirs when they go.  And, like you, if they didn't have any "extra" when they got here, I would insist that they begin some savings, as well.
Kudo's to you!!



TheGorenSociety -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 5:07:04 AM)

Interesting,  luckily we do not have this problem in our group, Our group now requires new slaves to be placed into any house. Since we run along old Roman traditions ,we require  a mandatory trial period, if during trial  any slave who is released  is returned back to the group along with any of her possessions.In our group any slave released from a house, must be transferred back to our group house at the owners expense.All slaves coming into our group sponsored or not, must be  fully screened and trained, they must earn the right to be a slave, this screens out a lot of issues. Same goes for potential new owners, they are fully vetted prior to taking on a slave with us.We overcome a lot of the new age bdsm mindset. We however do believe it is up to each person to make their choice.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 5:15:58 AM)

quote:

Do you think a submissive should insist on a clause like this in their agreement/contract?


it might just be the one thing they need in order to surrender themselves...or it just might be the one thing that keeps them from that experience of total surrender.
 
like everything else we discuss here, there is no One-Size-Fits-All or One-True-Way answer that is going to work for everyone.
 
we all create our own "lifestyle", and our own definitions for the labels that get used such as "slave" or "submissive" within the context of our own lives.
 
for us, "submissive" retains a negotiated amount of authority, or control, and your "escape clause" system might be a good idea for one.
 
while this slave's sexual orientation and personality is submissive, she has entered into a Master/slave relationship and, (again) for us, "slave" doesn't
*call any shots
*have any expectation of privacy or accounts Master doesn't have access to
*have any other Boss to report to other than Him, so she would have no independent paycheck to reguarly deposit into an "escape clause" fund
 
so therefore, it isn't something that would work for us.



daddysprop247 -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:25:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nightlander
I like this idea. I take my responsibilities as a Dominant very seriously. The question is- this escape clause, would it damage relationships or trust, if you were to move in with a Dominant/Master, and he insisted on setting up a way to get you out of the house?

Has anyone reading this had problems getting away?

Has anyone had an escape mechanism built into their relationship?

Do you think a submissive should insist on a clause like this in their agreement/contract?

I look forward to some interesting answers.

N.


on this i would have to agree with Mercnbeth, in that i don't feel that an "escape clause" would be beneficial to a Master/slave dynamic. personally, i would and could never feel truly owned by someone if i know in the back of my mind that there's always an out if things get too tough. not to mention that i can't even fathom having money or any other material possession that he didn't fully control. when i agreed to become a slave, i understood that i was making my final choice as a free person, and that my fate was now entirely in someone else's hands....that one day down the line he may very well decide to release me or give me away, with nothing to call my own and no one to turn to. and you know what? i find COMFORT in that reality, not fear or anxiety. it's part of what makes me feel secure in my slavery and this feeling of security allows me to focus on growth and simply being the best slave to him i can be.

yes, i've come across some sad stories of former slaves who either lose their Owner to death or have simply been released, and who struggle because they own nothing, are penniless, and have no one. but imo these are things one must be aware of from the start, and it's yet another reason why one should think very carefully before making that last choice.

now, as far as having this "get outta jail free" pass in a non-ownership D/s dynamic, that is something altogether different and could perhaps work for some.



Leatherist -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:27:05 AM)

I safety net is probably good insurance for an owner not becoming a narcissistic asshat.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:31:51 AM)

quote:

7- the Dominant protects her, even from himself


I was fine with what you said up until this.  Assuming it's even possible, a man from whom people need protection needs therapy, not slaves.  Ultimately, the slave must be responsible for her own safety and her own protection.  Whether the dominant be a predator or merely a putz, she is accountable for her own well being.

Anything else will sabotage the relationship.



DiurnalVampire -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:41:10 AM)

I personally believe that any relationship needs a way for both parties to get out without either one being ruined by it. I have not gotten control of either boy's funds. If I eventually do, it will be Fox's, not Angel's.
As my slave, I expect someone to be willing to give everything they have to me. It is MY place to put aside enough for them to make it on their own assuming we do not stay together. I dont have to let them have free access to that money, though. In my position, I wil not tell them they cannot go, but I will make them ask for their release and with it their funds. Giving them free reign to  leave is the same problem as being unchecked.  I should not have to worry about it, which I dont. But, assuming things are going well, making sure they dont have the urge to dip into the funds for any reason is what I would be more concerned with.
Having been divorced and seen the mess tat can cause even in a vanilla setting where I controlled the funds for the whole marraige, I know how messy it can get when 2 people part ways. My theory is anything that comes in with a person leaves with them, and although money might be untouchable without permision, just its being there is a safety net that takes the edge off. When times are good, theres no reason to even think about those funds, and if there are problems, the fear of being kicked out and penniless doesnt make matters worse.

DV



SensualPassion41 -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:52:22 AM)

I think the idea of setting up an account for the well being of the salve is a good idea.  You are showing you care enough to make sure she is taken are of even if things do not work out between the two of you.  I'd look at it as a "just in case"  thing.  If after sometime I felt it ws needed we could take a great vacation or buy something we both want.



chellekitty -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:55:05 AM)

i think it is a good idea, unlike beth and prop have mentioned.... when i have been in a slave state of mind in a relationship, i have had hundred's of dollars in my pocket and the inability to spend it without my Master's permission...and i am the first person to compulsively buy crap i don't need from those marketing tricks by the cash register because it's pretty or shiney...

so a fund that is there "just in case" is not going to deter from my mindset of being a slave if i am in a relationship where i am a slave....

chelle



Mercnbeth -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 7:58:19 AM)

quote:

The question is- this escape clause, would it damage relationships or trust, if you were to move in with a Dominant/Master, and he insisted on setting up a way to get you out of the house?


Any agreement becomes your collective source of rules. A submissive having an 'escape clause' which could terminate the relationship means, at the very least, the submissive has equal 'control' over the relationship as the dominant. If that's your goal - use the clause.

If your focus is more pointed to the material aspects of the relationship then the process is much easier. Write out a contract spelling out who owns what and who gets what and what percentage of 'ownership' is agreed upon in the event of dissolving the partnership. The process should give you a good indication about the person who you are contemplating making your partner.

Granted, that you are surrounded by examples of failure. The high percentage of divorce and relationship break up would seem to make planing for it a good idea. However, I hope you put as much thought, discussion, and planning for success as the consideration you are giving to anticipated failure. 



SubbieOnWheels -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 8:02:00 AM)

At my age, the prospect of losing a Master to death is more frightening than the prospect of a relationship not working out. If my Master were to die, and we weren't married, the only way I would have funds would be (1) if He had me in His will (in which case there might be some awkward questions), or (2) if He had set some money aside in an account I had access to so that I could withdraw that money on my own. Besides, my income is from Social Security Disability, and it is deposited directly into my account - so it is imperative that there be an account in my name, and I am savvy enough (my Dad didn't raise no dummies) to be sure I had an escape clause (or at least an escape fund).



toservez -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 8:34:23 AM)

These are relationships just like any other relationships. A person regardless of gender and role is responsible for themselves and their actions.

I have seen not only in this life but regular life as well a person trapped or thought of themselves trapped in a bad relationship and miserable because they did not take personal responsibility for their life.

Personally unless I am legally protected my assets and ability to take care of myself financially are something my Master would not have control over and while if the relationship started to be measure in years not months then it would become gray in that area.

I see nothing wrong with what you describe as an escape clause. Although my first thought was more of a guilt free dump the slave when done with her type plan. I was writing a pretty hardcore dominant on the other side about this topic he pointed out in a long term relationship one way or the other assets become a we eventually instead of yours or mine.

In terms of a slave’s mentality with or without this should really have no bearing. If a person cannot serve as a slave without feeling trapped that is a sign of a person needing help and if one thinks you cannot serve and be dedicated as a slave if there is easy ability to leave that is insulting to most of us. We are either serving as a slave in a healthy relationship or not. The details cannot make the judgment of that.



MasterFireMaam -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 8:55:10 AM)

I have several friends who require the slave to already have the "escape fund" in place when they come. It's a measurement of how dedicated they are to the collar.

Master Fire



littleone35 -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 9:13:19 AM)

I think it is a good idea just in case.  I am owned by my Master we do not live together, but if we did Master would want me to have a bank accout with enoiugh money so i would be ok if (God forbid) anything happened to him.  It shows that he cares about my well being.  I am a submissive not a slave, maybe it is different for girls who are slaves.  I personally think it is a good idea for all.  No flames please i said it is my personal opnion it may not be yours.

Matt's littleone



OmegaG -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 9:16:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubbieOnWheels

At my age, the prospect of losing a Master to death is more frightening than the prospect of a relationship not working out. If my Master were to die, and we weren't married, the only way I would have funds would be (1) if He had me in His will (in which case there might be some awkward questions), or (2) if He had set some money aside in an account I had access to so that I could withdraw that money on my own. Besides, my income is from Social Security Disability, and it is deposited directly into my account - so it is imperative that there be an account in my name, and I am savvy enough (my Dad didn't raise no dummies) to be sure I had an escape clause (or at least an escape fund).


I've gotten hooked on Big Love recently.  The husband, in one episodes, had a confrontation with the mother of his third wife who was concerned about the future.  He'd set up trusts for all the kids and all the wives as well as putting them in his will.  The trusts are less prone to be contested and I think is a sound idea for those who don't wish marriage or who can't lawfully be married.

To the topic started by the OP:  I can see that it would be a good thing for some M/s types, I can also see ways it could be abused.  I guess it would depend on the people involved.  I think that there are s-types that would dispicably abuse it and I can see s-types that would find comfort.

I've left non-M/s relationships for my safety with nothing to my name, I know it can be done and I know I can overcome the obstacles if needs be.  Many have not had to make that choice so I can see how it would be a scary prospect to them.

At this time we have no choice, I have to work and be semi-financially independent.  When circumstances change I do want to spend time thinking about the future-- not just an "escape clause" but if I'm not working, then I'm not contributing to my social security and if I'm not married then my ss won't reflect the income that would be supporting me (and since if I wouldn't be working outside the relationship, I would still be functioning as a support role in his earning abilities).  The future has to be thought about, but I don't think one-size fits all and the individuals need to talk and come to an agreement.



CalifChick -> RE: Escape clause (2/18/2008 9:16:52 AM)

FR

I think the phrase "escape clause" is making my teeth itch. I'm not sure what to call it, but I agree that a financial safety net of some sort is wise is any relationship. It doesn't have to be for the purpose of leaving the relationship, but in case of any calamity or catastrophe. It seems that it would be essential if the two people are not married and one depends on the other for financial security.

Cali



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0390625