This was what i meant earlier - while many of the elements of the document are found in contracts this was *not * a contract and was not a negotiated agreement. And i have never heard of any D/s or M/s relationship which was not negotiated. (Except for abusive ones obviously).
Oops - the above makes more sense if i include this quote.
That’s just bloody scary!
Anyone else notice the last line of the story linked to above?
They’ve been married for 9 years? So what, he just decided after two kids and nine years of marriage that he’d put down his “expectations” in writing? :dubious:
So…she can only complain that something is going to hurt before trying it? Or, she can complain, but has to finish doing it anyway?
From what I know, that’s pretty much the antithesis of a safe D/s relationship. Oh, and this guy is also into child porn.
I don’t think the BDSM community is lining up to claim this SOB.
I’m absolutley not making that claim. Of course I’m not. I disagree that it would be the “antithesis” of a safe D/s relationship if it were part of a consensual agreement, though I agree it is missing parts usually considered important, like how she can break the contract and what his role is, but I have known people who chose to live at that level of servitude, and were quite happy with it. If you want to call that sick, do it in the Pit.
This guy, on the other hand, is scary and sick, for real.
That’s just plain incorrect. In a D/s relationship, the Dom assumes responsibility for the submissive’s safety, even (especially) if the sub is “in the zone” or otherwise unwilling to do it themselves. This contract has no provisions to protect the sub or acknowledge that safety is an issue, therefore it is a bad one, and thusly squicky, even if the sub agreed to it.
Please refer me to where I said the lifestyle, not this individual in particular, was sick. I’m particularly interested since the word “sick” doesn’t even appear in my post.
I’ll take the last part first, if you don’t mind. I didn’t mean you, Jenny you, I meant anyone in general who might be thinking of making that allegation, because I felt a storm brewing. You sort of have now made the allegation that it is unhealthy (“bad” and “squicky” at least); if you feel the overtones of “sick” are too strongly negative, I’ll drop it happily.
I said I agreed that the thing is missing parts usually considered important, but in my opinion if it’s willingly signed, it’s still not an inherently “bad” contract. And surely if you’re using the word, you know that “squicky” is subjective. The thing is not meant for a court of law - again, we are now speaking of a hypothetical in which it is a consensual contract, which we know it actually wasn’t. It’s an erotic documented drafted by a couple who wishes to live an unusual lifestyle. The severity of it may be part of their game, and the dom may have gained the sub’s trust so much the sub feels comfortable with such a one-sided pretend agreement. I know it’s serious business, but let’s face it, it’s also just a silly legalistic game that gets people hot when they think about it and play by its rules.
13 days off for offering anal once, especially if our imaginary sub likes anal, is a really big loophole. I do not see this imaginary couple as having a relationship where she never gets to speak her mind or refuse his demands. It looks to me like she could easily go weeks without invoking the harsher parts of the contract.
And again, the guy’s a fucking lunatic and he should not be allowed go near women ever again.
Right, but I was getting the impression from your posts that you don’t see the sub’s safety as being that important if they were willing to relinquish it. In the case of your hypothetical sub’s total trust, what would you think if the sub told you they didn’t have a safeword? It’s dangerous not to consider safety whatever the degree of trust and respect. And it may be a game, but then the choosing and invoking of the safeword is part of the game, as surely as the timed fellatio, and should be included in the rulebook. Ignoring it at the least sets an unhealthy precedent. And since I am not saying that the lifestyle is sick, but that not practicing safety is disturbing, I do not think I have brought any discriminatory allegations into the thread.
What’s that saying of my grandmother’s? “Trust in God, but wear your seatbelt.”
However, I don’t want to derail the thread, either, so I agree to disagree.
This is an interesting conversation - would you be willing to open an IMHO thread on it, or should I, perhaps? Specifically the safety issue, including the safeword one, because I could say a lot about it, but I don’t want to clutter this thread up any more (after this anyway…sorry!) either.
And to be clear, I do withdraw any aspersions I’ve cast or implied on you inre the “sick” issue.
Thanks. Feel free to start a IMHO thread and to quote anything I’ve said in this thread, if you like.
Yes, I find this contract totally eww, and I don’t eew lightly.
However, I think this contract is this guy’s private fantasy, put to paper, and it is now used by his ex-wife as a weapon in the divorce.
Think of it. The couple was married for nine years, yet the “contract” was never signed. If it was meant as a sort of sicko version of a pre-nup, (“sign this or no marriage!”) it would have been signed, and there would have been more legalese in the wording.
If the guy was a true domineering male, he wouldn’t have had to spell his wishes out. After nine years of marriage, a true dom-guy would have domineered his wife into such submission, that just raising an eyebrow would have been enough, if she didn’t get into her garterbelt fast enough after putting the kids to bed. He wouldn’t have the need to sit behind his computer and put up elaborate fantasy contracts.
The fantasy-aspect shows in the almost lusty detail of the wording and the elaborate lettering, and in the fact that there aren’t any details on what his duties and obligations are.
So besides competely eew, the contract is also completely pathetic. He couldn’t have handed his ex a more deadly weapon. I’d almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost, but not quite.
…and as a control fantasy gone public, this “contract” reminds me of that website where a guy offered money to any woman who would allow herslef to be impregnated by him. He’d have strict demands on how the kid would have to be raised and such. All his demands he stated on his website, including a few akward but seriously intended naked pictures of himself to show the women what he brought to the gene pool.
I’d be obliged if anyone could link to that site, if it still exists on the Net. It was so fascinating and so sad.
Do you think we might benefit from Evil Captor’s input? 
**First let me just state that nothing I say here should be taken in anyway as legal advice.
**
If this was a K (contract), it would fail for several reasons. I haven’t had a chance to read it critically, but suffice it to say it probably would not be enforceable even if the woman did sign it.
First of all, it outlines duties for her but what, pray tell, is she to receive in return? In other words, there appears to be no bargained for exchange and this contract would fail from lack of consideration.
But let’s just say that he gets passed that; the planets are aligned, the dead walk the earth, and we find ourselves in the United States of Utah. What are his damages? What would give him the benefit of his bargain? Could he have the court require his wife to specifically perform the duties outlined in it? Probably not. Courts rarely require specific performance when it comes to making someone perform in an employment sense. An injunction is more likely and would prevent her from being someone else’s bondage queen. Once again, that’s assuming she received something in exchange.
Lastly, this agreement would probably fail because it is unconscionable. That is a legal term but I’m sure you can figure out what it means.
One more thing. **Just because you sign something that says “CONTRACT” on it does not mean it is a contract. **Often it is not a contract at all and can even be voided on occasion as well. Contracts can be oral and do not need to be evidenced by a writing unless they are within the teeth of the Statute of Frauds… But that is another story.
eww.
According to Frey, it’s “not a contract, but a description of rules for you.”
Last paragraph.
Not that it changes the nastiness of the document. But do we really know how seriously this was to be taken? It could’ve been written tongue in cheek. So to speak.
There’s gotta be more to this story. This woman was married to the guy long enough to produce two children. Unless he suffered a severe personality altering brain trauma recently, he’s probably always been like this. Maybe he just went to far and got really scarily violent, maybe there was an unrelated argument, Maybe the wife found his alleged stash of kiddie porn. I dunno.
From the posts here, I don’t think the SDMB community is lining up to claim this SOB, either. It would be nice if his cellmate drafted a “description of rules”, though…
I don’t think that prison commissaries stock garter belts and thigh highs. Sleeping naked probably wouldn’t be a problem, though.
Aside from the fact the guy kidnapped his wife, the bdsm community - at least the ones in it who use or believe in these types of “contracts” - thinks this one was was quite tame and very “beginner.”
If his wife wasn’t into it too, that’s another issue. But the contract itself - meh, the bdsm community says. Not weird, not very demanding, not very restrictive, definitely not psycho. Quite “nice,” on his part, in fact. And nowhere near as specific as it could have been. You think the stuff he wrote was “controlling” or down into the minutia of what he could possibly expect regarding sex? Man, you gotta find some real hardcore d/s practitioners and ask them what their lives are like - there aren’t enough of these smilies :eek: on earth to express what you’d think of their rules!