LafayetteLady -> RE: Which do you consider more of a committment a collar or a wedding ring? (12/10/2009 11:21:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: toxichearts Not to mention, if any childeren were to come from the relationship it would help them maintain access to what ever resources were accumulated in the marriage. I would just make sure your wills stay updated incase anything should happen. To be clear, within the united states, marriage does not assist children in maintaining access to the rescources accumulated during the marriage. You can not completely disinherit a spouse, you can completely disinherit a child. In the case of intestacy (death with no will), both the spouse and the children will inherit based on the laws in those states. Anyone can contest a will, whether married or not. As much as I hate the example, look at Anna Nicole Smith; the wedding ring did not prevent the children from contesting the will. On the other hand, without a marriage the surviving partner could very well have a much more difficult time having the will upheld, and if there was no will, then they are shit out of luck on anything that was not owned jointly with right of survivorship. So while the concept of being someone's slave and "hoping" they will take care and provide for you after their death, unless the slave's name is also on that deed or title of ownership, the house will be gone without a will and subject to the will and anyone who contests the will. There have been many threads that talk about providing financially for your sub/slave. Bank accounts in their name, putting property in both names with right of survivorship. Those are things that will protect the sub/slave upon their dominant/master's demise. Joint ownership with right of survivorship IS NOT subject to any will, it automatically becomes the property of the surviving title holder. Of course, a home that had been owned for some time prior to the relationship can be contested. In other words, there is no 100% way to be sure of anything. As to the OP's question, a wedding ring is a symbol, a collar is a symbol. Symbols are just that. They represent something, they are not the commitment themselves. Certainly we can all opine on which symbol represents more of a commitment. But as Osidegirl said, collars seem to go on and off like disposable lighters. Is that because "some" don't take them as seriously as others? Maybe. After all, plenty of people get married multiple times as well. Is there much difference between doing either thing? On the other hand for those who say they would marry someone and should the woman take off the wedding ring and leave they would be hurt but get over it, yet if a woman removed her collar they would be devastated....well that says nothing more than that person doesn't put much consideration on who they would marry to begin with. The reality is that while both a marriage or being collared carry no more commitment than the people involved, it still remains that in a marriage, should promises not be kept, should things happen that makes either party so unhappy they feel the need to end thing, marriage is the only one that will hold real consequences to ending the relationship. Also, for many that "ownership" or "collar" represents a one sided agreement, because they say that "master" must release them, they worry that if they do something wrong, "master" will no longer desire to own them. How many times have we seen threads where the sub/slave is miserable, but says they can't leave because "master" refuses to release them? Yes, their concept of reality has been somewhat altered, because we all know that in reality they can leave if they want to. But it remains that for many the removal of that collar is decided by only one party in the relationship, and that one party makes ALL decisions about what the leaving party will have at the end. So while for either one, the commitment is only worth what the parties involved attach to it, only one of those things is guaranteed to protect BOTH partners should it end, either by decision or death.
|
|
|
|