RE: I Trust You, But...

RE: I Trust You, But... (Full Version)

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

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A contract is likely to serve a fruitful purpose in terms of lining out expectations and goals in a more thorough and precise way than just conversation and memory would. At bare minimum, a "contract" must be enforceable, or no contract exists. It's enforceable to the extent that the violation of the terms in the contract will void the agreement and due to the fact that currency can be measured in emotional increments as much as monetary ones. quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot It's not a contract because (a) nobody can legally bind themselves or anyone else to an illegal activity, and (b) it's not enforceable. Personally, I'd not only laugh my ass off if someone was dumb enough to present me with a BDSM contract, but it'd send me straight for the door, knowing the supposed Dom/me had just exposed themselves as a foolish twit. The word "contract" does exist outside the parameters of law, you know.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:22:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A contract is likely to serve a fruitful purpose in terms of lining out expectations and goals in a more thorough and precise way than just conversation and memory would. It's not a bad idea as far as assisting the delineation of the things in which trust is expected. As far as a slave contract goes, I agree. Now, if in order to fulfill said expectations, one runs into specific issues with laws, then legal protections have to be put in place in order to be able to fulfill those aspects. The problem I'm chewing on is that it always seems to smack of mistrust to involve the legal system even though it is meant for just the opposite. lovingpet

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A contract is likely to serve a fruitful purpose in terms of lining out expectations and goals in a more thorough and precise way than just conversation and memory would. It's not a bad idea as far as assisting the delineation of the things in which trust is expected. As far as a slave contract goes, I agree. Now, if in order to fulfill said expectations, one runs into specific issues with laws, then legal protections have to be put in place in order to be able to fulfill those aspects. The problem I'm chewing on is that it always seems to smack of mistrust to involve the legal system even though it is meant for just the opposite. lovingpet I think any attempt to involve legal elements into the construct of such a "contract" would defeat the entire purpose. Then it would surely merit the type of response SexyCarrot has been giving it.

SexyCarrot -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:24:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet I added even legal ones in parenthesis for this very reason. Nope. Slave contracts are not legally enforceable. However, within a M/s relationship, there may be things that are best handled by means of a legal document. So I guess it is more along the lines of how does the understood D/s or M/s dynamic and legal contracts/documents directly impacting the couple function when it comes to building or destroying trust? Do they have a place in such relationships? I don't think they add trust at all... so no, I don't believe they have a place in any relationship, be they D/s, M/s, or vanilla -- at least with regard to any type of performance placed upon the relationship. People do whatever it is they do in a relationship (even a purely sexual one) because they want to, not because they have to. Has always been the case, and will always be the case. Adding BDSM to the equation doesn't change that.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:26:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A contract is likely to serve a fruitful purpose in terms of lining out expectations and goals in a more thorough and precise way than just conversation and memory would. It's not a bad idea as far as assisting the delineation of the things in which trust is expected. As far as a slave contract goes, I agree. Now, if in order to fulfill said expectations, one runs into specific issues with laws, then legal protections have to be put in place in order to be able to fulfill those aspects. The problem I'm chewing on is that it always seems to smack of mistrust to involve the legal system even though it is meant for just the opposite. lovingpet I think any attempt to involve legal elements into the construct of such a "contract" would defeat the entire purpose. Then it would surely merit the type of response SexyCarrot has been giving it. Yes, but in some cases the law doesn't really give us much choice. For example, if a Master has determined that his slave is to own nothing and not work and agreed to provided for his/her financial needs both now and in the future, then he will have to write up a will and legally sign the submissive as a life insurance beneficiary. He can always change these if it comes to be he no longer is obligated for whatever reason, but if he plans to keep up his end on something like this the law makes it very difficult to do without their help. lovingpet

SexyCarrot -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:27:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A contract is likely to serve a fruitful purpose in terms of lining out expectations and goals in a more thorough and precise way than just conversation and memory would. At bare minimum, a "contract" must be enforceable, or no contract exists. It's enforceable to the extent that the violation of the terms in the contract will void the agreement and due to the fact that currency can be measured in emotional increments as much as monetary ones. quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot It's not a contract because (a) nobody can legally bind themselves or anyone else to an illegal activity, and (b) it's not enforceable. Personally, I'd not only laugh my ass off if someone was dumb enough to present me with a BDSM contract, but it'd send me straight for the door, knowing the supposed Dom/me had just exposed themselves as a foolish twit. The word "contract" does exist outside the parameters of law, you know. 1) Nothing to "void", because the alleged contract never existed. 2) A contract is a contact... if it's "outside the parameters of law", then it's not a contact, but something else.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:30:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet I added even legal ones in parenthesis for this very reason. Nope. Slave contracts are not legally enforceable. However, within a M/s relationship, there may be things that are best handled by means of a legal document. So I guess it is more along the lines of how does the understood D/s or M/s dynamic and legal contracts/documents directly impacting the couple function when it comes to building or destroying trust? Do they have a place in such relationships? I don't think they add trust at all... so no, I don't believe they have a place in any relationship, be they D/s, M/s, or vanilla -- at least with regard to any type of performance placed upon the relationship. People do whatever it is they do in a relationship (even a purely sexual one) because they want to, not because they have to. Has always been the case, and will always be the case. Adding BDSM to the equation doesn't change that. I think you have missed my meaning in this thread. I am not talking about trying to hold someone to staying in a relationship. Hell, even marriage is no guarantee (it's called divorce). I am talking about supporting legal documents that allow each party to fulfill the expectations they agreed to. Transferring a title or deed, for example (not because it is required to get to stay in the relationship, but because the submissive agreed to not own property, perhaps). How about a will in the event of a dominant's death who wanted to provide for a submissive that may outlive him? lovingpet

porcelaine -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet Absolutely agreed. If a piece of paper reinforces what that free will is choosing though, what's the harm? lovingpet it can become a security blanket of sorts for some. where the allegiance or reasoning for doing what is expected/agreed to places a focus upon the contract as opposed to the parties themselves. the desire to adhere to what is stated should be in place whether or not the contract exists. porcelaine

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot 2) A contract is a contact... if it's "outside the parameters of law", then it's not a contact, but something else. If you are functioning with the decision to invalidate any concepts of the word "contract" outside of legal ones, then we're not even discussing anything genuinely. If the OP or the thread is dealing with the issue with any sort of legal implication, then your point is well taken. Otherwise, can we just pretend every instance of the word "contract" is being replaced with "pinky promise" and go from there.

SexyCarrot -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet He can always change... This is the reason such things/instruments don't add trust... because they can always be changed.

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:35:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine it can become a security blanket of sorts for some. where the allegiance or reasoning for doing what is expected/agreed to places a focus upon the contract as opposed to the parties themselves. the desire to adhere to what is stated should be in place whether or not the contract exists. Wouldn't this line of argument invalidate every instance of legal marriage for the same reasons (in which case, I'd be oddly tempted to agree with it)?

porcelaine -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst I don't do contracts unless there is money involved. i feel the same and see no reason to bring them into personal situations that don't involve business or financial transactions. relationships do falter and no document will prevent its undoing. porcelaine

SexyCarrot -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:37:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero ...just pretend every instance of the word "contract" is being replaced with "pinky promise" and go from there. In reality, that's about what it adds up to.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:38:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero "pinky promise" [sm=rofl.gif] I am not trying to legally bind a master and slave (for clarification). I am interested in the everyday legal processes that rear their ugly heads when people are trying to fulfill what they promised. I can want my stuff to go to anybody I want after I die, but if I don't tell they courts to whom, I can't guarantee they will go to that person. If that person is dependent upon getting my stuff because I promised that he/she would, then it is important that I know for sure that my word is kept. lovingpet

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:39:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet He can always change... This is the reason such things/instruments don't add trust... because they can always be changed. Not every relationships is a verbal agreement between Darth Vader and Lando Calrissian. Change is not some magical entity to which we are witless victims to. We are able to make active decisions based on our emotional/internal changes. Expecting our mutable psychological innards to be get-out-of-commitment-free cards is an awfully dishonorable way to deal with such a situation when it arises in a relationship.

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:41:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero ...just pretend every instance of the word "contract" is being replaced with "pinky promise" and go from there. In reality, that's about what it adds up to. Perhaps, yes. But some people's pinky promises may actually have a reputation for being consistently honored more than others. Heck, some people's pinky promises probably trump other people's contracts in terms of honesty and fidelity. And that's what everyone is aiming for in relationships in the end, no?

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:42:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyCarrot quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet He can always change... This is the reason such things/instruments don't add trust... because they can always be changed. Once again, I am not talking about adding trust. I am talking about just being able do what you agreed to do. In other words, the person/people making the contract already trust each other and have enough vested interest in each other to be legally bound in some way. lovingpet

porcelaine -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:45:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Wouldn't this line of argument invalidate every instance of legal marriage for the same reasons (in which case, I'd be oddly tempted to agree with it)? in many respects it does because marriage offers no guarantee of permanence. nor does the institution of a contract either. in both cases it is merely a tiny piece who's power is only as grand as we permit. it shouldn't be the catalyst for why we elect to do what is right, but for some it is. but what happens when that is taken away? does the person under contract behave differently? and if that occurs, what was the motivation for the said behavior in the first place? porcelaine

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet I think you have missed my meaning in this thread. I am not talking about trying to hold someone to staying in a relationship. Hell, even marriage is no guarantee (it's called divorce). I am talking about supporting legal documents that allow each party to fulfill the expectations they agreed to. Transferring a title or deed, for example (not because it is required to get to stay in the relationship, but because the submissive agreed to not own property, perhaps). How about a will in the event of a dominant's death who wanted to provide for a submissive that may outlive him? Ah. Then I've missed it as well. Those sorts of contracts, I think, can always be changed (like a living will), no? So why would a committed D/s relationjship necessarily treat them any differently than a marriage would? I'm not sure it has much to do with trust at all. The compatibility result of the relationship is what makes the difference as to whether these commitments end up seeming good or bad.

NihilusZero -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 11:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Wouldn't this line of argument invalidate every instance of legal marriage for the same reasons (in which case, I'd be oddly tempted to agree with it)? in many respects it does because marriage offers no guarantee of permanence. nor does the institution of a contract either. in both cases it is merely a tiny piece who's power is only as grand as we permit. it shouldn't be the catalyst for why we elect to do what is right, but for some it is. but what happens when that is taken away? does the person under contract behave differently? and if that occurs, what was the motivation for the said behavior in the first place? porcelaine And, as I'd warned, I agree. [8D][:D]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02