Emperor1956 -> RE: Do we have a responsibility to give a slave a future in BDSM or Fem dom when we die ? (12/14/2006 10:42:21 AM)
|
Many of the replies in this thoughtful thread deal with spirituality, and while I'm very interested in that realm, I'm going to pursue some more concrete thoughts dealing with the mechanics of "passing on" a slave. If a responsible Mistress or Master decides to provide for her or his slave after his or her death, how does one do so? How does one enable the slave to have financial security, or to place that security in the hands of a trusted second Owner? Financial planning is relatively easy, but takes forethought. Also, of course, it helps to have assets. While love (and I consider Mastery a kind of love) may flourish without money, money sure makes everything a lot easier. The purchase of a life insurance policy on the Owner's life, owned by the slave, is one idea (and yes, I realize that for those of you who believe a slave owns "nothing", this violates that principle, but for me it isn't a critical issue). If the Owner dies, the death benefit will become the property of the slave. If this is not acceptable, there are ways to place the death benefit in trust for the slave (and perhaps a trusted second Owner or member of a leather family can become the Trustee). Of course the problem is someone has to pay for the insurance policy. I know of one D/s House that for a while professed a rule that when slaves worked outside the house (and there were several slaves that did), while their wages were property of the Owners, a set percentage of all net income was set aside into a fund which belonged to the slave and which was accessed only when the slave left the House for whatever reason. I've always thought that was a decent, moral stance, although there are significant legal issues in the event of disruption (divorce, bankruptcy, etc.) in the Owners' lives. Still, funding the "benefit" by this method is not dependent on the Owner's assets, and over time the slave's forced savings could build a substantial "nest egg" for a slave who must go to another situation on the death of his/her Owner. Again, if the slave is to own nothing, this concept needs to be fundamentally reevaluated. Ways not to do it? While the Owner can own everything and by his or her grace bequeath money to a slave on the Owner's death, I see real substantial legal problems with this. Any bequest by will or other means may well be contested by the Owner's heirs. Slavery is of course not accorded any legal rights in our society, and therefore a bequest to a "slave" is very vulnerable to attack by legal heirs who might well (1) not recognize and in fact revile the Master/slave relationship and all it embodies and (2) be very greedy. The family of the Owner -- often family that is estranged and has written off the Owner during his/her lifetime -- sails in under the laws of heirship and claims the assets that were in theory promised to a non-traditional life partner, or for the slave's upkeep. I've seen this sad result in estates involving same sex couples and nontraditional marriages (including those with a M/s component). I've also seen careful planning with competent legal help thwart the attempts of heirs to disrupt the plans of estranged -- but wealthy -- kinky family members who die with assets. Passing a slave on to a new Owner raises all sorts of financial issues. I applaud the establishment of "leather families" to provide ongoing mentoring and spiritual issues, but are financial concerns addressed? Does the slave come with a "dowry"? When Master dies, if money is involved, is it given to the slave to provide to the new Master? This seems to upset all sorts of power issues -- money is power in our world, and a slave with significant wealth "willed" to a Master with relatively little wealth could surely change the power dynamic. Does Master will the money to the new Master, and hope for the best? In a world of honor and integrity, this would be fine. Of course, we wouldn't have lawyers if we lived in that world, would we? None of these issues would be present if slavery were acknowledged by law, and if in fact slaves were disposable property. But except for fantasyland (Gor and the Marketplace come to mind) in fact the real issue of "providing" for a slave, at least financially, has to comport with the law that prevails. Another solution might be to marry One's slave. But if that doesn't shift a power dynamic, what does? And for may of us, this could result in a charge of bigamy! This was just some lunchtime musing, and I'd be glad to hear what others think, and discuss more, if there is any interest. E. (OH...Time for the disclaimer: I'm not your lawyer. I don't even know who you are and you don't know who I am. And if you think you DO know me, I'm still not your lawyer. If you want legal advice, find a lawyer, hire him or her (or enslave him or her, I guess) and rely on their legal advice. This post is not legal advice and shouldn't be taken as such. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear, and your milage may indeed vary.)
|
|
|
|