RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent

RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

proudsub -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 1:57:41 PM)
quote: what CreativeD and BeingC has peaked in me is the question as to just how He is going to achieve this "guardianship" as i am currently sound of mind and body. i dont think i could ever lie. i dont wish to even start with a lie. so i will sit and watch for what unfolds. I think this is the crux of the matter. I hope you will be allowed back on the boards to give us the outcome of all this. I am "legal guardian" for my aunt who has been mentally incompetant for almost 60yrs now. I have to file an annual report with the court stating any change in her condition and plans for the coming year. Her mother left her a nice inheritance which is in a trust account that I have no contol over except to make requests to cover her expenses.

MadamTee -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 2:06:25 PM)
My suggestion is that at least one if not more 'escape' clauses be built into whatever document is prepared and not just developed by you ... but by your own attorney, one not compromised by His influence who is looking out for your best interests ... For example: ...a 30-90 day initial clause where either can dissolve the union without cause; annual or semi-annual confirmations {people do change over time}. Again, for Myself, as a Domme of many, many years, I would never suggest something so restrictive. Best to you...May wisdom guide your choice ...

Invictus754 -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 2:10:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavequery He officially collared me. i could not be any happier. He has now chosen to take wedding vows. ok, im cool with that. He put a tattoo and a brand on me. They are beautiful. Here comes the query. He wants to move into total control over me. i have no problem with this. .......to give him control over my mind soul body spirit. i have always longed for this, so i have no trouble with this. He has always been very open with me prior to embarking on any change He makes with me. i love this about Him. In essence, should i ever "run" from Him for any reason, He simply has to pick up the phone and have me returned to Him. Believe it or not, i still have no problem with this. Do you trust him? If YES, none of this makes a difference...you would do what he asked anyway. If you don't trust him, you may end up chained to a wall for the rest of your days...but you might like that, too. :) All your statements point to a good relationship so far and that he is doing what I wish I could do in the US. Good luck. I may move to Canada.

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 2:17:05 PM)
I guess after all this I'll just add that the only thing being proposed here is to make it legally binding and be able to take actions without legal direct consent. In other words "legal non consensual consent" in life. I personally feel I already have this with my partner. I'd be more than fine to let him have all powers of attorney and guardianship over me if it secured medical and legal connections between us. All of my assets could already go to him, and would be his at a moments notice. I understand the symbolism of things and how intense it can be to know that legally you no longer have a say. But it really is only creating a legal system to support the internal system you already have in place.

domiguy -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 2:30:05 PM)
The end all beat all is that you can argue this point forever, but at the end of the day there is no "legal" need for "gaurdianship" unless the op is not of sound mind (at least in the U.S.) ....Again end of story....If you are going to marry said Dom and do not have a prenup in place then your assets are still yours as a premarital asset(depending on the state)....Again the only thing the op gives up is what she is willingly to part with. There is no need for escape clauses....this is all handled in something called divorce....There is no basis for Gaurdianship and any further discussion on these lines fails to acknowledge this simple but accurate premise. Again end of story. So let me reaffirm a position that I believe to be accurate...The "power exchange and dynamic" takes place between the ears because that is the only place that it matters and carries any significance whatsoever.

agirl -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 3:01:06 PM)
As domiguy says, it's binding between the ears. The niggle and naggle of legality is interesting but you're no more his with it, than * without it*. agirl

Lashra -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 3:18:52 PM)
I am just going to say this, if you have as you say "no problem" with anything he is doing, why are you here asking for opinons? I also see lots of red flags <No I am not flaming you, just telling it like it is> but if you feel as an adult that you want to go thru with this, then don't question, just go for it and see where it takes you. Hopefully it won't be to an unmarked grave. ~Lashra

xxxWENCHxxx -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 4:58:23 PM)
<gulp - sticking neck out on this> slavequery originally said: " ...my query is; it there any of you out in CM land who is aware of just what Master is planning on doing? i have tried googling and can not seem to find much info. i just want to be well informed about what is about to happen to me. my time on the computer will be cut off in a few days....remember, Master will gain control over every aspect of outside contact i will have. So please hurry with your responses and info. this may well have been the wrong forum to ask this in but she had no where else to go in her mind evidently, W/we still don't have all the facts i'm sure .... the 30, 60, 90 day case reviews is an excellent thought and is very possibly going to be written in ... and so many other excellent ideas too .... domiguy ... you made many great cases for arguement as well as many others .... but they we're off the mark of what she may have been asking and not saying .... again we don't know all the facts .... ultimately she still has the right to NOT sign any contract and more than likely on the outside have to walk away from the relationship .... she will have her own councel when it comes down to the wire (she's stated this in this forum) .... for the record; isn't hypnosis for quiting smoking (and anything else we use hypnosis to quit) a "form" of brainwashing ??? could she be a disciplinary problem we don't know about and her Master and her agree this is the path they B/both want? <<< just a supposition folks so don't beat me up for it ... i'm posting this because i see her taking a beating for this and it is a very interesting topic .... there may be others out there we don't know about that may have had their minds changed because of all that has been written here today so feel good about that ... should she get the chance to post as this goes along it will be interesting to see learn along with her what the possible outcome could be ... personally, i have asked her to have her Master possibly post to this thread to let U/us all know how everything turns out for her ... (i doubt it will happen as it will still be a form of her having contact with the outside world so who knows) .... whew ... i think W/we all could use a nap now ....

AquaticSub -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 5:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadamTee My suggestion is that at least one if not more 'escape' clauses be built into whatever document is prepared and not just developed by you ... but by your own attorney, one not compromised by His influence who is looking out for your best interests ... For example: ...a 30-90 day initial clause where either can dissolve the union without cause; annual or semi-annual confirmations {people do change over time}. Again, for Myself, as a Domme of many, many years, I would never suggest something so restrictive. Best to you...May wisdom guide your choice ... I think an "escape clause" really is a good idea. Maybe after the first year you get some time to think about it. Then maybe once a year for the first five years, after that you get the period every five years if you want... whatever. People really do change over time and situations can change drastically.

domiguy -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 6:13:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavequery As background info to help with any future comments, That was well over a year ago. He moved me to Him. He officially collared me. i could not be any happier. He has now chosen to take wedding vows. ok, im cool with that. He put a tattoo and a brand on me. They are beautiful. Here comes the query. He wants to move into total control over me. i have no problem with this as it was something i have always wanted. He and i discussed long long ago His desires to do this and i consented willingly to this. Last night, He informed me He will be starting a form of brainwashing where any contact i will have with the outside world will be solely at His discretion. ok. That He is having papers drawn up with a lawyer that gives Him power of attorney over me. ok, still no problem here. He is also having papers drawn up giving all control over my physical being for the length of my natural life. ok, still no problem here. He explained to me, that in Canada, under the mental health laws, once these papers have been entered into court of law, they are final. In essence, should i ever "run" from Him for any reason, He simply has to pick up the phone and have me returned to Him. quote: MadamTee For example: ...a 30-90 day initial clause where either can dissolve the union without cause; annual or semi-annual confirmations {people do change over time}. Again, for Myself, as a Domme of many, many years, I would never suggest something so restrictive. quote: xxxWENCHxxx this may well have been the wrong forum to ask this in but she had no where else to go in her mind evidently, W/we still don't have all the facts i'm sure .... the 30, 60, 90 day case reviews is an excellent thought and is very possibly going to be written in ... and so many other excellent ideas too .... quote: AquaticSub think an "escape clause" really is a good idea. Maybe after the first year you get some time to think about it. Then maybe once a year for the first five years, after that you get the period every five years if you want... whatever. People really do change over time and situations can change drastically. First off, I find this notion of gaurdianship as being plausible under Canadian law 100% REDICULOUS!!!, The whole notion that her Dom could become her gaurdian is ABSURD!!!! Second if for some reason it was possible through perpertrating some act of fraud meaning that he takes control because she is no longer able (they lie!)....STOOOOPID!!! This piece of paper is not final...She could petition the court at any time and be done with the whole mess...this whole thread is rediculous. Her Dom is undoubtedly a liar or she is...One of them is not telling the truth. I'm going to whisk you away and through shadow Dr.'s and hypnosis you will be changed.....You are getting sleepy.."You will be mine...You will be mine all mine" (domiguy playing "Emotional Rescue" by the Stones) "You will be mine. You will be mine all mine." She says they are going to take wedding vows...Whooopeee!!! I agree that it would be nice for most marriages to have a bail out after 6 months 4 years and 10 years without ramifications....Unfortunately they don't...aside from a prenup...Marriage is what marriage is!...And divorce is the way you dissolve a union!!! Aside from the fact that she says she is getting married which I believe most of you ignored or were unaware or she might have made up.....Whatever!....I imagine we will be seeing more of "Lady X" down the road...This is not going to "stick." (Lets pretend...much like the op...That she wasn't getting married) Why does she need an "escape clause" or "annual confirmations"....She is not bound to her Dom in any way shape or form....Even if she were to get married. She doesn't like him she moves on...It's really pretty simple stuff! You are acting like a "slave" contract is real!!! What gives? The only thing..that makes this real is the value you place on it....ONE MORE TIME!!! The only thing that makes this real is the value that you place on it!!!....Because outside of what is between your ears, none of this is enforcable. The subject at hand is not whether some asinine "Canadian gaurdianship" is enforceable?....the question actually should be ...Is any of this slightly believable?

catize -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 7:17:30 PM)
If I have a medical question, I make an appointment with my doctor. If my car is making a noise, I take it to a mechanic. If I have legal questions, I hire a lawyer. But, hey, it’s worth a shot….......anyone here wanna help me file my taxes?

KnightofMists -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 8:07:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists If you are capable of making your own decisions, then this does not appear to be legal. It is my opinion that choosing not to make your own decisions does not warrent involving the government of Canada into your personal lives. Once you have invited them in, they are duty bound to now protect someone who is legally declared incapable of managing their own affairs. From the definition of abuse within the Adult Guardian document from BC, Canada many of the things we do in BDSM would be considered abusive. Restricting your access to outside contacts would be abusive. Branding you would be abusive. Hitting you would be abusive. Brainwashing you would be abusive. If someone were to inform the Canadian government that they thought you were being abused, they would have to investigate and he would not have the defense that you consented because you have been legally declared incapable of providing consent. nice post girl... What is amusing to me is this Dominant becoming more chained to the legal authorities as He attempts to gain legal authorities over his girl. As kyra has shown rather well... the Government has some legal obligations to protect a person that is deemed to lack the capacity to consent. These legal responsibilitie are such that it will very much limit and inhibit the guardian of such a person. I find particularly amusing that the intent of the Dominant is to chain the submissive to remove consent and in effect they chain themselves as much if not more than the submissive.

domiguy -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 8:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists If you are capable of making your own decisions, then this does not appear to be legal. It is my opinion that choosing not to make your own decisions does not warrent involving the government of Canada into your personal lives. Once you have invited them in, they are duty bound to now protect someone who is legally declared incapable of managing their own affairs. From the definition of abuse within the Adult Guardian document from BC, Canada many of the things we do in BDSM would be considered abusive. Restricting your access to outside contacts would be abusive. Branding you would be abusive. Hitting you would be abusive. Brainwashing you would be abusive. If someone were to inform the Canadian government that they thought you were being abused, they would have to investigate and he would not have the defense that you consented because you have been legally declared incapable of providing consent. nice post girl... What is amusing to me is this Dominant becoming more chained to the legal authorities as He attempts to gain legal authorities over his girl. As kyra has shown rather well... the Government has some legal obligations to protect a person that is deemed to lack the capacity to consent. These legal responsibilitie are such that it will very much limit and inhibit the guardian of such a person. I find particularly amusing that the intent of the Dominant is to chain the submissive to remove consent and in effect they chain themselves as much if not more than the submissive. I think I missed koM's post ....Very well done. I was quickly trying to google up the Canadian laws on the deffinition of a gaurdian,,,But what is the point? It can't differ much from our own....Either way nice post....Glad to see someone using their noodle.

DominaSmartass -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 10:38:19 PM)
I have yet to chime in on this thread. I don't know if slavequery is still reading or not. I am looking forward to reaching the end of the 5 pages as this has been most fascinating but I couldn't keep quiet any longer so here goes. Slavequery, I am going to say this only once and as nicely as possible, and please don't accuse me of flaming you as well because that's not my intention. From everything I have read so far (through page 4) something is very alarming to me. Well several things - and none of them are the fact that you wish to live as a slave to the extreme. I think that's great and do hope it will make you happy. What alarms me is the absolute knee-jerk reaction you have had to anyone who presents some concern over the situation. In the cases that anyone has offered constructive criticism or asked questions of you, you proceeded to accuse them of flaming you and then go on to adamantly defend your right to live your life the way you want it. I have seen this type of response before - notably in myself. Looking back on my own experiences, I only asked these types of questions when I knew deep down something wasn't quite kosher. Yet at the same time, if anyone tried to hint at that or say it to me, I would fight them tooth and nail. This may be completely innacurate, however, I can only say what appears to be the case. When someone is trying so hard to convince others that they have the right to do something and that doing that something is right, it usually means they have serious doubts about it themselves. And well you should. This is your life you're talking about. Again, I think it's wonderful if it's what you want but please be honest with yourself above all others. It's ok to admit to yourself that maybe you do not want this or maybe don't want it right now. Wishing you all the very best.

DominaSmartass -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 10:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists From the definition of abuse within the Adult Guardian document from BC, Canada many of the things we do in BDSM would be considered abusive. Restricting your access to outside contacts would be abusive. Branding you would be abusive. Hitting you would be abusive. Brainwashing you would be abusive. If someone were to inform the Canadian government that they thought you were being abused, they would have to investigate and he would not have the defense that you consented because you have been legally declared incapable of providing consent. Knight's kyra Beautifully said, kyra. You are a smart cookie!

proudsub -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/16/2007 10:58:04 PM)
quote: These legal responsibilitie are such that it will very much limit and inhibit the guardian of such a person. I find particularly amusing that the intent of the Dominant is to chain the submissive to remove consent and in effect they chain themselves as much if not more than the submissive. Excellent point. The authorites tend to check up on guardians to be sure they aren't abusing their charge. This could backfire on this Master.[:o]

BeingChewsie -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/17/2007 5:56:18 AM)
Absolutely! There are far easier and legal ways to lock someone into a situation that would be difficult(and for some impossible for them to leave), ways that don't involve overseeing by the government. My owner uses many of those things, because they are extremely psychologically effective and perfectly legal. I could never seriously contemplate leaving nor would I veto him or tell him no...and he didn't need guardianship to make that fact. I'd need guardianship if I ever did that, it would be proof positive that I had lost my mind I still contend her post was much more a "shock the natives" post than anything else. Who cares if he wants to try and gain guardianship? if he wants to lock himself in or limit himself? quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists If you are capable of making your own decisions, then this does not appear to be legal. It is my opinion that choosing not to make your own decisions does not warrent involving the government of Canada into your personal lives. Once you have invited them in, they are duty bound to now protect someone who is legally declared incapable of managing their own affairs. From the definition of abuse within the Adult Guardian document from BC, Canada many of the things we do in BDSM would be considered abusive. Restricting your access to outside contacts would be abusive. Branding you would be abusive. Hitting you would be abusive. Brainwashing you would be abusive. If someone were to inform the Canadian government that they thought you were being abused, they would have to investigate and he would not have the defense that you consented because you have been legally declared incapable of providing consent. nice post girl... What is amusing to me is this Dominant becoming more chained to the legal authorities as He attempts to gain legal authorities over his girl. As kyra has shown rather well... the Government has some legal obligations to protect a person that is deemed to lack the capacity to consent. These legal responsibilitie are such that it will very much limit and inhibit the guardian of such a person. I find particularly amusing that the intent of the Dominant is to chain the submissive to remove consent and in effect they chain themselves as much if not more than the submissive.

StellaByStarlite -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/17/2007 6:41:24 AM)
There is a website that covers some sort of "legal slavery" called rlslavery.com. It claims to have information about how to draw up documents making full ownership or whatever completely legal. You could try going there, but the guys running it are very secretive about it, so don't expect anything.

CreativeDominant -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/17/2007 7:39:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie Honestly, probably none. Found out by who? Prosecuted for what? Fraud? maybe..and it is a BIG maybe ...I could only see there being government involvement if they applied for some type of services...medicare/medicaid..whatever the canadian equivalent is for Social Security disability( or whatever the canadian equivalent is)...barring doing any of those things who is going to prosecute her for working with someone to gain guardianship...if anything it probably calls her comptence more into question not less. I just can't see a situation in which the government would get involved unless they were taking cash from the government. I can't imagine a DA wanting to touch prosecuting her for faking incompetence just to allow somene to have guardianship, not to defraud the government or anyone else out of money, for no other reason then a personal thing between them. She would have to fake it, unless she isn't competent. We don't know if she is or isn't, that is for a court to decide. If they want to take their chances and try to do this, I'm missing what the big deal is, they are not hurting anybody. People tie up our court system resoures for far more insignificant and mundane crap everyday. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Tell me...if she lies well enough to accomplish this but then gets found out some day...how many laws do you suppose the courts will bring to bear on her, her master, and quite possibly the doctors and lawyers who were deceived or who...if not deceived...circumvented the laws governing legal guardianship? I'm somewhat confused here...first, you don't think that I have a valid point in regards to the law being brought to bear on this couple by the Canadian government if they are found to have perpetrated fraud. You cannot see the government being involved... unless they applied for some sort of financial-aid services ... because "it isn't that big of a deal" and yet, when kyra mentions abuse...and the illegality of what slavequery and her master might be doing...you agree? Absolutely! There are far easier and legal ways to lock someone into a situation that would be difficult(and for some impossible for them to leave), ways that don't involve overseeing by the government. My owner uses many of those things, because they are extremely psychologically effective and perfectly legal. I could never seriously contemplate leaving nor would I veto him or tell him no...and he didn't need guardianship to make that fact. I'd need guardianship if I ever did that, it would be proof positive that I had lost my mind I still contend her post was much more a "shock the natives" post than anything else. Who cares if he wants to try and gain guardianship? if he wants to lock himself in or limit himself? quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists If you are capable of making your own decisions, then this does not appear to be legal. It is my opinion that choosing not to make your own decisions does not warrent involving the government of Canada into your personal lives. Once you have invited them in, they are duty bound to now protect someone who is legally declared incapable of managing their own affairs. From the definition of abuse within the Adult Guardian document from BC, Canada many of the things we do in BDSM would be considered abusive. Restricting your access to outside contacts would be abusive. Branding you would be abusive. Hitting you would be abusive. Brainwashing you would be abusive. If someone were to inform the Canadian government that they thought you were being abused, they would have to investigate and he would not have the defense that you consented because you have been legally declared incapable of providing consent. nice post girl... What is amusing to me is this Dominant becoming more chained to the legal authorities as He attempts to gain legal authorities over his girl. As kyra has shown rather well... the Government has some legal obligations to protect a person that is deemed to lack the capacity to consent. These legal responsibilitie are such that it will very much limit and inhibit the guardian of such a person. I find particularly amusing that the intent of the Dominant is to chain the submissive to remove consent and in effect they chain themselves as much if not more than the submissive.

KnightofMists -> RE: on the topic of consenting to non-consent (3/17/2007 8:40:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I'm somewhat confused here...first, you don't think that I have a valid point in regards to the law being brought to bear on this couple by the Canadian government if they are found to have perpetrated fraud. You cannot see the government being involved... unless they applied for some sort of financial-aid services ... because "it isn't that big of a deal" and yet, when kyra mentions abuse...and the illegality of what slavequery and her master might be doing...you agree? It's cause kyra is prettier than you.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875