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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

Absolutely agreed. If a piece of paper reinforces what that free will is choosing though, what's the harm?

lovingpet

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
He can always change...

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

I don't do contracts unless there is money involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
...just pretend every instance of the word "contract" is being replaced with "pinky promise" and go from there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

"pinky promise"

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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?

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