consent and commitment as law

consent and commitment as law (Full Version)

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

Message

sunshine333 -> consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 5:41:49 AM)
i read a lot on the boards about people's view on the lifestyle and the idea of reality vs. fantasy. people talk about the notion that since slavery is not a legal option that even consent to it does not bind a slave to her Owner. laws are not the only governing forces in one's life. there are many commitments that we make in our lives that have absolutely nothing to do with the law. for example ... our religious beliefs and practises. some people hold them at a much higher standard than our legal system and would abide by those "laws" more readily that our judicial system. a handshake is law enough to some. one's "word" is a legally binding agreement in some people's mind. when some people set out on any particular path and set their intention and level of commitment to such a degree that, no matter what, they will not give up ... in my opinion, that is just as binding, if not more, than any "legally" binding contract. for some, this idea is purely fantasy. for others, it is their absolute reality. if you were to own a slave ... or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? humbly, sunshine

Rover -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 6:04:57 AM)
Every day people make devout, binding commitments before their friends, family and God (we call them "marriages"... a few folks posting may even be familiar with them). And yet, over half of them end in divorce. Most folks, whether they be lifestylers or vanillas, enter into such relationships with the best of intentions. I have no doubt that their declarations of "forever" are made with virtuous intent. And yet, marriages end and collars are removed/returned. Lifestylers are no better or worse than society as a whole. Collars come and go, even amongst slaves and Masters. Any effort to portray a collar as something "more" than a wedding ring simply perpetuates another online myth. John P.S. - Give slaves legal right to half a Dominant's assets, and let's see how many collars they sling around.

ExistentialSteel -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 6:18:02 AM)
Collars are collars, laws are laws.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 6:26:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshine333 if you were to own a slave ... or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? The law does not dictate my behaviors and values. This holds true whether I am a slave or not. However, as I choose to remain a citizen of the country, its laws obviously are not in such erroneous accordance and do not actively invade my lifestyle to the point where I would renounce it fully. I also choose to abide by the enforcement of the laws as they are kept and broken.

candystripper -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 7:10:58 AM)
quote: when some people set out on any particular path and set their intention and level of commitment to such a degree that, no matter what, they will not give up ... in my opinion, that is just as binding, if not more, than any "legally" binding contract. for some, this idea is purely fantasy. for others, it is their absolute reality. if you were to own a slave ... or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? humbly, sunshine333 It's funny; i just had a mini-convo with a Dom on this topic. What you describe -- remaining in a relationship that is M/s no matter what is patently ridiculous. We give unconditional love to our children; mine could mow down a classful of kindergartners and i'd be right there; "she had a headache"; "t'wast her"; "she's suffering a twinkie allergy"; etc. Absolutely nothing my kid could do would cause her to lose my complete love and as needed, my support. Now let's compare this to a D/s or M/s relationship. i love deeply and would not leave due to disability or disease. But sure as s**t, the first time He used the "n" word my ass would be packing. There are other boundaries i will absolutely not permit to be crossed.. cheating, lying, hitting, etc. So yes, my One could drive me away forever in a moment -- and i make this quite plain to Men with whom i am in contact. That said, a collar means something different to me than a wedding ring -- it signifies i have given Him final decision power on most all aspects of my life; that i want/need/desire to worship, serve, and please Him; that there will never be another (barring death or departure); that to me, He is the World. i fail to see how any responsible adult can give more than that. candystripper

candystripper -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 7:22:56 AM)
quote: John/Rover P.S. - Give slaves legal right to half a Dominant's assets, and let's see how many collars they sling around. LMAO.."Pay the Cost to be the Boss"; Pat Benitar. candystripper

Mercnbeth -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 7:39:53 AM)
quote: or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? to this slave, the collar she wears is held in much higher value than a wedding ring and the contract Master and His slave have together is more valuable to this slave than a marriage contract or any physical asset. quote: P.S. - Give slaves legal right to half a Dominant's assets, and let's see how many collars they sling around. some slaves, this one included, have no interest in having a "legal" right to a Dominant's assets.....isn't that what marriage is for?

Rover -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 7:50:07 AM)
quote: some slaves, this one included, have no interest in having a "legal" right to a Dominant's assets.....isn't that what marriage is for? That really wasn't the point, which is that entering into and dissolving a power exchange relationship has no tangible "cost" to it. And as many smarter people than myself has asserted, that which has no cost eventually has no value (ie: most people find it easier to move on after the "bloom is off the rose", than to invest the time and effort in making a relationship work). Of course, that has no bearing on any specific relationship (such as your own). But it's equally true that everyone (?) expects their own relationship to be the exception. Bottom line, lifestyle relationships come and go as much as any other relationship in any other lifestyle. What makes them work (or not) are the individuals, not the lifestyle (or its symbol, the collar). John

thetammyjo -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 11:42:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshine333 i read a lot on the boards about people's view on the lifestyle and the idea of reality vs. fantasy. people talk about the notion that since slavery is not a legal option that even consent to it does not bind a slave to her Owner. laws are not the only governing forces in one's life. there are many commitments that we make in our lives that have absolutely nothing to do with the law. for example ... our religious beliefs and practises. some people hold them at a much higher standard than our legal system and would abide by those "laws" more readily that our judicial system. a handshake is law enough to some. one's "word" is a legally binding agreement in some people's mind. when some people set out on any particular path and set their intention and level of commitment to such a degree that, no matter what, they will not give up ... in my opinion, that is just as binding, if not more, than any "legally" binding contract. for some, this idea is purely fantasy. for others, it is their absolute reality. if you were to own a slave ... or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? humbly, sunshine I think that personal codes of honor or one thing. However, regardless if one partner decides to leave and the other tries to make them stay, the laws of the country, state, and city are what will decide both your fates. I don't believe that when people keep pointing out this is consensual and not legal slavery that they are trying to devalue committment. They are trying to be honest. Legalities aside there are many other forces that tempt our committments daily. For example, my slave's parents come down to visit with him on Sunday (they don't know the type of relationship we have; his parents, his choice). They told him over and over and over again that he needs to get his own apartment and move out. He told them "no" over and over and over again. His parents have no legal rights over him anymore (and never did since he's been an adult from the time we met) but they have parental influence and power. Don't know if anyone has tested the USA constitution but technically the 13th amendment only outlaws certain types of slavery and servitude and even has an out for criminal punishments. A couple (if they wanted to try it out) could attempt to make their slavery more legal. I, for one, don't need it or want it. Though having multiple partners recognized would be nice financially and healthcare wise speaking. I think you can do a bit of this with some power of attorney documents and contracts.

Rover -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 11:57:35 AM)
Contracts cannot make legal what is illegal (or every drug dealer would simply sign a contract with their clients). Much of WIITWD is illegal, regardless of consent (primarily, but not limited to, impact play). As for the nature of consensual slavery, it would be (I believe) legal to engage in such a relationship dynamic so long as it remains consensual. Problem with legal contracts is that they are enforceable, even if one party no longer desires to consent. And that's one manner in which "slave contracts" fail the legal test. Additionally, legal contracts require "consideration" (an exchange of reasonably equal value). While we may appreciate the "value" inherent to what an owner offers in a power exchange relationship, it does not rise to the level of "reasonably equal value" in the court's view. Finally, there are issues associated with human and civil rights and whether they may be subjugated in a contractural arrangement. I'm not an attorney (though I play one on television and recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express), but I believe these are some of the legal issues related to the legalities of consensual slave contracts. John

veronicaofML -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:01:34 PM)
sunshine----- i believe the issue "I" have...is that...so far...in MY reality...you may start out...with 'a' agreement...but somehow it seems to escalate into something else ans THAT is what "I" fight against. what is it that some people feel they have to start changing things in mid stream? THIS is what makes me pack and leave. if ya can't stick to one agreement...don't tell me you are going to... tell me upfront you are going to change things later........and i'll think on it...but normally i am going to tell you hell no. take care

slavejali -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:13:23 PM)
quote: if you were to own a slave ... or be an owned slave ... would the collar and commitment it represents be held in higher or lower value than your country's laws? i was Masters slave before i was his wife. Marriage to me doesnt mean having the legal right to his assets, what it means to be is a legal recognition that i am his. It is an addition to my collar. i cant very well go and tell everyone, "oh this is my Master" but i can say "This is my husband" to any ol person that i care to. i cant get mail saying " Master and slave (Insert surname here)..but i can get mail saying "Mr and Mrs (insert name here). Whenever i fill out a form where i have to insert a next of kin and their relationship to me, i cant put ...Masters name..relationship..my Master..but i can put .."husband'. Marriage allows me to be recognised as his by all levels of society. i love this recognition, im proud to have to have it. By Master marrying me i have even been "branded" with his name. There are so many symbolic factors for me in marriage that are an extension of my collar. So, to answer the question, i dont necessarily think being joined "legally" is higher or lower than a collar, a commitment comes from the heart and mind and has nothing to do with a piece of paper, yet saying that, being joined "legallly" does come as a lovely addition to a collar...there are so many additional benefits as far as being recognised as his.......maybe im just a greedy little slave who wants to be known as his in as many ways and by as many people as possible.

Phoenxx -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:26:29 PM)
To answer the question about what is held higher I would have to ask what laws are you asking about? I jaywalk all the time. I have been known to drive a bit above the speed limit. I have yet to kill anyone. Although I do have a list... LOL The fact is that 51% of all marriages in this day and age end. I’m not sure as to the figures for collarings, but based on what I have seen I think it is about the same or a bit higher. A contract of slavery has no legal standing. But all provinces in Canada have laws regarding common law marriages. You can hold that your relationships have more meaning or standing then the law, but if you do break up, the lawyers will still make the money ;-) A contract of slavery can help to prove intent in an abuse case. It can help by showing that both parties knew what was going on and that there was no hidden agenda. But it is still the laws of your city or province or country that rules the land. Just don’t do anything in the streets and scare the horses ;-) Tony

truesub4u -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:28:37 PM)
O K, Now my head frickin hurts. Laws, Consensual agreements. So many opinions, so many thoughts on this. There use to be a time when there was just the simple "knowing" you belonged to, or owned one. Material things did not matter, for one that was owned, was taken care of. And if ever the day came to part, was done so. Progress, i think not. A shame, down right!

Rover -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:32:35 PM)
Out of curiosity, what time are you speaking of, and what lifestyle? John

Phoenxx -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper [We give unconditional love to our children; mine could mow down a classful of kindergartners and i'd be right there; "she had a headache"; "t'wast her"; "she's suffering a twinkie allergy"; etc. Absolutely nothing my kid could do would cause her to lose my complete love and as needed, my support. Love them yes. Support them or make excuses for them NO when they go too far. If as you are jokingly saying (I hope) one of my children did mow down a class of kindergartners I would not look for an excuse such as the ones listed. Sorry this is a HUGE sore spot with me. I have a friend who has come damn close to this. Her son has been in court for several assault charges. And the last involved a knifing. That the person didn’t die was just luck. The court went easy on him and gave him house arrest in her house. Not once did she say a thing about all the times he violated his conditions. But she loved to whine about what he did and how scared she was of him. I almost stopped talking to her the day she called to cry on my shoulder about him carrying a knife to the bar again and how scared she was. The last I heard was he went to the bar and started a fight again. This time he mixed it up with the wrong people. And he was beaten pretty well. If she had not made excuses for him all his life, but let him pay the price, maybe it wouldn’t be this bad. And this doesn’t even touch what I say my stepbrother pull, including running down and killing a grandmother and her grandson in a stolen ambulance. Good thing my stepmother was there to support him too … too bad about the victims. Sorry, that is just a very strong hot button for me.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 12:45:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover I'm not an attorney (though I play one on television and recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express), <snipped> Thought I recognized you! W

thetammyjo -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 1:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Contracts cannot make legal what is illegal (or every drug dealer would simply sign a contract with their clients). Much of WIITWD is illegal, regardless of consent (primarily, but not limited to, impact play). As for the nature of consensual slavery, it would be (I believe) legal to engage in such a relationship dynamic so long as it remains consensual. Problem with legal contracts is that they are enforceable, even if one party no longer desires to consent. And that's one manner in which "slave contracts" fail the legal test. Additionally, legal contracts require "consideration" (an exchange of reasonably equal value). While we may appreciate the "value" inherent to what an owner offers in a power exchange relationship, it does not rise to the level of "reasonably equal value" in the court's view. Finally, there are issues associated with human and civil rights and whether they may be subjugated in a contractural arrangement. I'm not an attorney (though I play one on television and recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express), but I believe these are some of the legal issues related to the legalities of consensual slave contracts. John My point was that I don't know of anyone first hand who has actually tried to have a consensual slave relationships tested in the American courts.

Rover -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 1:52:30 PM)
Understood, and simply pointing out why that might be so. John

Sunshine119 -> RE: consent and commitment as law (11/28/2005 2:14:28 PM)
Collars don't allow for many things. While they allow a Master to own a slave, unless they are married, most states will not recognize the slave as having any rights associated with his/her master. If the slave is f/t, at home, most states will not allow the master to put the slave on his/her medical insurance policy. Often the slave is left without any insurance at all in these cases. In addition, in most states, should the master become so ill that he/she is not conscious and cannot make decisions for him/herself, the slave will not be able to make those decisions, regardless of the time they had been together. And in death, the slave, once again, could even be excluded from the funeral, if that is the family of the master's wishes. There are some ways around some of these concerns, but it does make everything difficult. Wills can help with some of the dying and death issues, but the life issues never go away. Having the master be wealthy enough to purchase health insurance for the slave is nice, or letting the slave work outside the home to get their own health insurance is an option also. But, having been in a 20 year marriage that ended in 90 days without consent from both partners, I realize that marriage is no more permanent than a collar. As was said somewhere else, about 51% of today's marriages end in divorce. Since witnessing more "snap on/snap off collars" than I would like to admit, I have to guesstimate that much more than 51% of Master/slave relationships end without the consent of both as well. So what is the solution? If you are a submissive or slave it makes sense to make sure that you, in some ways, insure your own health and safety should something happen to your dominant/master. And, if there are children involved, I would immediately opt for marriage for a number of reasons including the facts that it is easier to establish paternity, get child support , be able to care for your kids should the relationship end and reduce the stigma the children might suffer otherwise. Does any of this answer your questions?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875