quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

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

either the yoke exists or it doesn't. that is window dressing. if you can really grasp what it means to be bound, you'd understand why some have difficulty with your statements. the yoke IS the contract. we simply haven't bogged it down with legalese.

porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

When it comes to trust, it really ought to be a rather simple thing. Either you trust someone or you don't. Right? Granted, it may take some time to get to the point where trust is well established and developed in most, if not all, areas of life with another person. All in all, though, it seems to me that trust is one of those most stripped down things around. Trust with strings attached seems like something other than trust.

Then again, aren't there always "strings" of some kind? Whether it be a continued overall positive track record, doing the next step in building it further, repairing any damage that may have happened along the way, it is all the same thing. They are things that are done to acquire, keep, or reestablish this trust which is supposedly such a stand alone virtue. Some of these things may not really be viewed as hold outs.

How about if those reservations (that aren't really reservations mind you) were quite a bit more concrete? Reality is, there are some things that are a little too big to be wagering on faith and pixie dust. Some things just require a bit more of a formal pronouncement of intent and responsibility. I am thinking in terms of something similar to the age old battle of the "prenup". One says well if you trusted me you wouldn't need one. The other says if we are both trustworthy, then having one in place shouldn't be necessary to ever execute, so why not just do it. They both have a point.

How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Or does it taint that trust to even consider such a thing? I know opinions will vary and I am sure there will be some who will see a distinguishing when it comes to the dynamic itself (D/s vs M/s). I also know it is different for each according to their own personal relationships. General impressions are most appreciated!

lovingpet

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

Actually, I agree. That is WHY I don't think it should really have this weird reaction. I am commited to my partner because we have built a relationship together, not because we sign something or other. I just know that some of the things that often come as part of a very long term relationship necessitate legal documents to get them done. My hopes and reasons for being with him would have nothing to do with any piece of paper he or I happened to sign.

lovingpet

quote:

How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Or does it taint that trust to even consider such a thing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
One says well if you trusted me you wouldn't need one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venatrix
That's exactly my sentiment.  Why start a committed relationship with someone already planning its demise?  If someone asked me to sign a pre-nup, I'd walk away, simply because the relationship's demise is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  May as well get it over with sooner rather than later.  Same thing with a slave contract.  If he's not going to do what I want because it makes him happy to do it, a piece of paper isn't going to help any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

Her - "If you trusted me, you wouldn't need one."
Me - "You're right. So are you going to sign, or are we breaking up?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine


this is one of those things that i think people should hash out early on. especially if you know saying no is indeed a deal breaker. i remain astounded at the things people keep to themselves that they're well aware will make them say adios in a heart beat. sometimes you're merely delaying the inevitable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I guess I really shouldn't have left the "slave contract" barn door open. I don't have any problem with anyone using them if it is a tool that they enjoy, though I don't have an opinion of my own on that particular matter. I haven't had the need to form one and probably won't any time soon. I guess my slant is more toward the legal nity gritties of life. For people planning to be with each other for the long haul, it is important to make sure that the state can't butt into affairs that will affect each other's well being. Despite this being the thrust of the reason for some legalities to be enacted, I find that they are often taken the wrong way. What's meant as a loving act is misconstrued as a distrustful one. I would like to know why and how to avoid it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

I guess I don't see trust as an all or nothing deal. Like most human things, trust is actually quite complicated. For instance, I trust Carol a great deal. But I can guarantee you that she'll show up to the airport late pretty much no matter what. In real life, I trust her a great deal in some areas and in others, I trust her less. It would never occur to me to think that someone else ought to be perfectly trust worthy in every regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst
I think my distrust of contracts are based on knowing way too many submissives who were dismissed once the term was  up.  I dislike the idea of having a built in escape clause, that implies no harm no foul because it was all spelled out.
I would much rather feel it coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst
I think my distrust of contracts are based on knowing way too many submissives who were dismissed once the term was  up.  I dislike the idea of having a built in escape clause, that implies no harm no foul because it was all spelled out.
I would much rather feel it coming.

Wouldn't you feel it coming if it was spelled out in black and white?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst
I think my distrust of contracts are based on knowing way too many submissives who were dismissed once the term was  up.  I dislike the idea of having a built in escape clause, that implies no harm no foul because it was all spelled out.
I would much rather feel it coming.

Wouldn't you feel it coming if it was spelled out in black and white?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum
That's what I'm thinking.  Just like a car lease.  Trade In...Move up to the roomie more comfy model!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust?

Contracts have nothing to do about trust. They are benchmarks and references. There greatest value is at the inception of a relation. When the spoken word of expectations is put in written form, it serves to clarify and document responsibility. It documents terms and conditions within the relationship, not trust.

Six years after agreeing to our contract, we still value it. It lets us know where we came from and what we were thinking back when we didn't know each other as well as we do now. It reads silly in some cases, serious in others from today's perspective. beth crawling and attaching chains to her cuffs; made a lot more sense in our first small apartment. The sexy and erotic parts are still sexy and erotic!

Trust doesn't come from any document, it comes from people fulfilling the fundamental concept the document represents. A contract will not enable you to trust your partner any more, or any less. It will provide a clear point of discussion in a situation where an accusation of trust may be interpreted as a misunderstanding. If anything it serves to focus the individuals in a time of stress to issues instead of feelings.

We've told people who don't like the idea of drawing up a 'contract' to write out independent expectations, combine them, talk about them, amend them, and if signing them and considering the word 'contract' (we called ours 'Life Rules') too impersonal just keep them as they are in a drawer somewhere. Someday, you may find them and they are likely to generate a smile.