quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

i can't wait to hear what Bhruic has to say, but please allow me to offer a quote from your link:
"A typical penal statute classifies bodily injury as serious if it “creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”

IMHO, that's a far cry from what any1 should be doing under the guise of BDSM.

I suggest that the only thing this proves, is that BDSM cases never even make it to court. I.e. the evidence your link offers is immensely misleading and anti-BDSM, as it never says how many complaints of excessive BDSM never make it to court. And again, no BDSM should be causing what's described in that legal definition I quoted from your link.

quote:

Yet, as the MPC acknowledges, the assessment of the seriousness of harm is often affected by judges’ “moral judgments about the iniquity of the conduct.” Courts tend to inflate the risk and harmfulness of an activity they want to denounce. For example, any injury caused during a sadomasochistic encounter has been consistently classified as serious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

i can't wait to hear what Bhruic has to say, but please allow me to offer a quote from your link:
"A typical penal statute classifies bodily injury as serious if it “creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”

IMHO, that's a far cry from what any1 should be doing under the guise of BDSM.

I suggest that the only thing this proves, is that BDSM cases never even make it to court. I.e. the evidence your link offers is immensely misleading and anti-BDSM, as it never says how many complaints of excessive BDSM never make it to court. And again, no BDSM should be causing what's described in that legal definition I quoted from your link.

I'll quote back at you from the same link:

quote:

Yet, as the MPC acknowledges, the assessment of the seriousness of harm is often affected by judges’ “moral judgments about the iniquity of the conduct.” Courts tend to inflate the risk and harmfulness of an activity they want to denounce. For example, any injury caused during a sadomasochistic encounter has been consistently classified as serious.

I've had the pleasure of meeting a lot of the folks involved with NCSF. It's worth noting that they have at least one lawyer on their board. They also frequently work with police and local DAs to make sure that BDSM-related arrests don't end up going to court. I urge you to at least look at their list of coalition partners before you dismiss them out of hand.

BDSM-related assualt is legally murky right now. It's been a while since anyone has been convicted of consensual assault, but we don't have any higher court verdict overruling a verdict like that, either. And assault laws are usually state laws, too - what's legal in one state might not be legal in another.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone would be arrested for consensual BDSM, but that does require trusting the police. I'm a rich white kid, and I get along pretty well with police, but I know that a lot of people have less faith in the fairness of local law enforcement. I don't blame them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
It's been a while since anyone has been convicted of consensual assault,

quote:

But that's distorting the actual intent and value of a BDSM slave contract. It is a ritual. It is an extension of the collar and shackles. It is a prop passed between Master and slave to tangibly affirm their intentions and guarantee a degree of accountability on both sides. It actually doesn't matter if a slave contract would stand up in court or not, because it is not a contract written for the vanilla world judicial system. Consider it a roleplay prop. It has as much meaning as you give it, and the actual "power" and enforceability is in the minds and hands of the participants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

Any contract that is deemed illegal, whether in execution or in intent, in the eyes of the viewing law, is considered null and void in North America. ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

The critical question seems to me to be: "If I enter into a slave contract, how likely is it to be legally used against me, and how likely is it to legally protect me, if I ever have to stand in front of any kind of judge?" To answer this question, I don't see any way around concrete research.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
What, for our purposes, is a slave contract, and where exactly would we try to enforce it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
If an otherwise-legal contract included a page about blowjobs, would the rest of the contract stand in court if the blowjobs portion was struck down?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
What, for our purposes, is a slave contract, and where exactly would we try to enforce it?

As a first attempt, let's say we have a male dom and a female sub/slave, and the contract includes extreme control, such as, "Slave will have no contact with another human being without the dom's permission." Then the bad breakup happens, the dom says, "She agreed to this, and in fact suggested I put that line in there," and the slave says, "He was brainwashing me and I felt I had to sign, or something bad might happen to me." Whom does the existence of a written document help, statistically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

Any contract that is deemed illegal, whether in execution or in intent, in the eyes of the viewing law, is considered null and void in North America. ..

Here here. Well said... the entire post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Alecta, while I am willing to accept that you just performed a good pounding on the law, I think strangedesire is the only one on this thread who has come close to pounding on the facts. (Plenty of people have pounded on the table, though.)

The critical question seems to me to be: "If I enter into a slave contract, how likely is it to be legally used against me, and how likely is it to legally protect me, if I ever have to stand in front of any kind of judge?" To answer this question, I don't see any way around concrete research. If that's something you (or anyone else) would like to investigate with me a bit, please message me on the other side, because I'm curious enough now that I'd like to know. I'd need to work with at least one person with a license, skill, and Lexis-Nexis, in order to make this happen, because I don't have sufficient background to trust my own analysis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
...If an otherwise-legal contract included a page about blowjobs, would the rest of the contract stand in court if the blowjobs portion was struck down?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
As a first attempt, let's say we have a male dom and a female sub/slave, and the contract includes extreme control, such as, "Slave will have no contact with another human being without the dom's permission." Then the bad breakup happens, the dom says, "She agreed to this, and in fact suggested I put that line in there," and the slave says, "He was brainwashing me and I felt I had to sign, or something bad might happen to me." Whom does the existence of a written document help, statistically?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
As a first attempt, let's say we have a male dom and a female sub/slave, and the contract includes extreme control, such as, "Slave will have no contact with another human being without the dom's permission." Then the bad breakup happens, the dom says, "She agreed to this, and in fact suggested I put that line in there," and the slave says, "He was brainwashing me and I felt I had to sign, or something bad might happen to me." Whom does the existence of a written document help, statistically?

this is very basic stuff - please, do the research out of this board, or hire a lawyer to consult.

you start the paper trail before the contract, to show acquiescence before any superior-inferior element was added to the relationship. that includes their own written thoughts on what they seek.

ps edit - sorry, I'm not trying to be condescending, and I'm not an expert either. but the questions you are asking seem good in that they're looking forward and thinking of possibilities, but at the same time show you need to get a better basic understanding to even know the right questions to ask.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
As a first attempt, let's say we have a male dom and a female sub/slave, and the contract includes extreme control, such as, "Slave will have no contact with another human being without the dom's permission." Then the bad breakup happens, the dom says, "She agreed to this, and in fact suggested I put that line in there," and the slave says, "He was brainwashing me and I felt I had to sign, or something bad might happen to me." Whom does the existence of a written document help, statistically?

this is very basic stuff - please, do the research out of this board, or hire a lawyer to consult.

you start the paper trail before the contract, to show acquiescence before any superior-inferior element was added to the relationship. that includes their own written thoughts on what they seek.

ps edit - sorry, I'm not trying to be condescending, and I'm not an expert either. but the questions you are asking seem good in that they're looking forward and thinking of possibilities, but at the same time show you need to get a better basic understanding to even know the right questions to ask.

The guy in New York had a few years of emails from the woman. He spent 18 months in jail before the authorities finally dropped the charges, due to her lack of cooperation.

In theory, there are ways the law should work. The issues arise from less ethical people and how the vanilla world views what we do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
haha, wanna play word games? "null" has a different legal meaning than "void", and the correct term is "voidable", since that's what it is until a court rules on it (not "deemed", what was that anyway, so vague)

and "illegal" is an abstract and vague word (criminal or unlawful have more meaning). and, North America has nada to do with it. lol, dunno why i'm picking u to argue his case, but u sounded so sure. and i guess vague legalities raise my hackles (get's me pompous).