|
Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 1:37:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alecta
I think I did more pounding on the very nature of the contract rather than the applicability of law.
The question being thrown around seemed to be "are slave contracts legally enforceable". My stance is "depends on the contents vs your local law and public perception". Frankly, I find the whole discussion ludicrous on account of BDSM slave contracts are expected to be signed consensually, without duress. We trust, when we enter into such contracts that the person you're entering it with is serious about it. The renter from my example for whatever reason is happy to accept the lack of indoor plumbing, and is happy, over all, with the situation. While there is no conflict between the renter and landlord over the arrangement, the illegality of the renting contract is moot because there is nothing to be resolved over it. In most cases, you cannot consent to "assault"-- however, if it is consensual, you the "victim" wouldn't deem it assault. And really, what the hell are you doing entering a committed slavery term with someone whom you don't trust not to violate it?
This is more pounding on the law, but bearing in mind that I have never purported to be a licensed lawyer, am experienced with nonBDSM advocacy, have done my own extensive research on the subject in the past (within 5 years... I'm sometimes an info-junkie like that) and too lazy to do any proper figures and quoting for you :p but I am keen on discussing it and welcome correction.
In North America, the contents of the contract is more important legally speaking than the name. If I hold a pre-nup over my spouse with clauses that fall within legal standards but are also clearly a matter of BDSM slavery, it is enforceable (the trick is that thin margin between legal standards and kink). If I hold a document called "slave contract" but its contents are not deemed in themselves illegal, the courts may look at me as though I'd chosen to wear a chicken costume to court, but it is not, under their own ethos, acceptable for them to simply hold it against you because of an unfortunate choice of label. The judges are free to hold me in contempt and slap me on the wrist for not being PC, but that's about the most they can do without themselves violating the ethos of their roles.
The specifics of what you're asking depends on the law of the land you are in. In some countries, slave contracts are accepted on account of consensual slavery (non BDSM) being legal. Some locales deem anything that is agreed upon between two parties to be binding, regardless of the circumstances-- but this usually also translates into the slave/victim getting into as much trouble with the law as the Owner/perpetrator for the existence of the contract. In some places, enforceability is accorded to the name of the contract. An employment contract that reads like a slave contract would be honoured, for example, while a "slave contract" that reads essentially like a regular relationship would be prosecuted.
Whether the law will hold the fact that you've previously engaged in such a contract against you is anecdotal. It is the same whether they should hold engaging in a BDSM consensual slave contract against you, or whether they should hold LARPing as a savage man-eating werewolf against you. Strictly speaking they shouldn't, but there is no contingency or protocol for that. For the law to attack and convict you based on "having a slave contract" is equivalent to beating down a kid for holding a bag of what they think is pot... they'll be in a lot of trouble if it turns out to be basil, but people have not gotten around to having set rules regarding what they should be doing when they see that suspicious metaphorical bag. The largest blindspot is the flexibility of public morality, largely, in my opinion, because the letter of the law by the large allows for it.
In practice, it seems a vast majority of those who lobby publicly and try to legalise their slave contracts are married to each other and the intent of the contract is a binding symbol and promise like the ring, but with more defined words-- like how the words "in sickness and health, poverty or richness, til death do us part" used to be legally binding. Effectively what they're trying to do is have their choice of union acknowledged, no different from the fight for gay marriage to be legalised. But there is enough of an interest from people who see it as a way of binding non-consensual slaves to sour the pot.
It is my understanding that there are organisations in the BDSM community that "oversee and enforce" contracts, but it is also my understanding that most of what they do is mediate and negotiate consent: for example, if called in to look over a contract, their priority concerns are if the contents are do-able given the participants' circumstances, damaging to anyone's health, and of course, if the slave and Owner are agreeable to it. I have yet to come across a case in which "enforcement" has constituted to more than a local blacklisting.
I do think as an experienced slave Owner that invoking vanilla law is a good ultimate tap-out, though. There is no harder-coded safeword than that in the typical modern psyche. You know without a doubt there is a problem when-- and all that.
i think your intent is good, and you raise a lot of great points. but i think you need to go back to the basics, and start to build the proper understanding and framework, starting with using the proper terms and concepts.
e.g., first, you have to separate out civil from criminal. then, get the lexicon down, like battery (not assault).
i know no one knows me from shit on this board, and i sound pompous. but it raises my hackles because this can have real world consequences if people don't understand and have mixed up or confused notions of civil and criminal law. i admit, it also irritates me that no one else sees this, and in fact, just the opposite, seems to glam on to a mish mash of mixed up civil and criminal and contract topics.
|
|
|
|
