BDsm

right. Since slavery is illegal, they really are just sort of 'gentleman's agreements'. But they do help in that each party is able to define needs and limits and repercussions for the edification of the other.

there are several online references and samples of contracts. :)

I know I could Google it but was afraid I'd find lots of crappy ones out there and would need to sift through them, not knowing enough about it to ascertain what is standard. Can you point me to some sites that have good contracts, often recommended, considered the gold standard, or anything like that?
 
My understanding is that it really is a very personal thing. I don't think you can do it wrong, per se, and I don't know that there's a standard. It's just about laying out very clearly what each person intends to commit to within the relationship. Did a quick search, and this seems like a fine example:

http://brian618.whyayh.com/mirror/bdsmlearningcenter/basics/sample_slave_contract.html

that's pretty much the contract I am looking at...with modifications to fit our family.
 
I always thought of those "contracts" as part of the BDSM play-experience, a "prop" if you will... Just like restraints or butt-plugs or floggers or whatever else you do. It's supposed to be FUN for everyone, all the time, even when it looks like the sub is not enjoying themselves.

^^ i don't do all those things, just one of them, and it's more like a "kink" for me and not a D/s activity. But i know people, etc...
 
I always thought of those "contracts" as part of the BDSM play-experience, a "prop" if you will... Just like restraints or butt-plugs or floggers or whatever else you do. It's supposed to be FUN for everyone, all the time, even when it looks like the sub is not enjoying themselves.

^^ i don't do all those things, just one of them, and it's more like a "kink" for me and not a D/s activity. But i know people, etc...

for those of us in the lifestyle, our relationships aren't play anymore than those of the 'vanilla' world are play or poly relationships are 'play'. As a mistress, I take the gift of submission as an honor and I take my responsibility toward my sub/slave very seriously. While fun IS a rewarding part of the lifestyle, it is much more than that. I take a long time to get to know a partner and to make sure our needs/desires are compatible, just like any vanilla relationship.

Between a dominant and submissive, a contract is an oath of honor where both parties (altho it looks skewed to the dom's benefit I admit) can make their needs known. That contract should be honored by both parties as they would honor any other agreement.
 
I always thought of those "contracts" as part of the BDSM play-experience, a "prop" if you will... Just like restraints or butt-plugs or floggers or whatever else you do. It's supposed to be FUN for everyone, all the time, even when it looks like the sub is not enjoying themselves.

^^ i don't do all those things, just one of them, and it's more like a "kink" for me and not a D/s activity. But i know people, etc...

Yeah, of all the possible things that people can do together in D/s, it seems to me that a contract is least like a "prop". I suppose some people might treat it more casually than others, but I would say that, for most, you're absolutely not "playing" any more at that point. You're making a serious commitment to each other. For some, it's probably as significant as a marriage contract would be. And whether you're taking it casually or seriously, it almost certainly *won't* be fun all the time, what relationship is? But that doesn't mean it won't ultimately be fulfilling for all involved... big difference.

BG, it sounds like you're thinking of BDSM as mainly a sex thing? A contract is a form of power exchange, aka D/s, and while sex may well be involved, it's more a relationship style/orientation (depending on howe you think of it, it's likely different for different people) than something you whip out now and then to spice things up, imho.
 
Last edited:
for those of us in the lifestyle, our relationships aren't play anymore than those of the 'vanilla' world are play or poly relationships are 'play'.

Wrong. You do not speak for "those of us in the lifestyle". You do not speak for anyone but YOU. I am repeating what I heard from OTHER people "in the lifestyle". This "our" and "those of us" when referring to people who practice, live, play, etc. BDSM is very patronizing and condescending, like "those of us not in the lifestyle" CANNOT POSSIBLY FATHOM the "lifestyle".

Also, people CAN practice or incorporate BDSM into their sex-lives as "play" and do not have to LIVE the LIFESTYLE. Just because you LIVE the LIFESTYLE does not make you some kind of ambassador or high-priestess. If God came down from Heaven and appointed you as some such authority, then someone failed to CC me when the memo was sent out.

You telling me how it is for "those in the lifestyle" is like someone trying to tell you about what it's like for "those of us who are poly".

Have your contract and your honor and your responsibility all you want. I'm happy for that, really I am. But do NOT presume to speak for anyone but yourself (and your submissives of course, since that is probably in the contract anyway).
 
Yeah, of all the possible things that people can do together in D/s, it seems to me that a contract is least like a "prop". I suppose some people might treat it more casually than others, but I would say that, for most, you're absolutely not "playing" any more at that point. You're making a serious commitment to each other. For some, it's probably as significant as a marriage contract would be. And whether you're taking it casually or seriously, it almost certainly *won't* be fun all the time, what relationship is? But that doesn't mean it won't ultimately be fulfilling for all involved... big difference.


Yeah, well, at least you didn't say "for those of us in the lifestyle". Are you basically saying that everyone who engages in some sort of consensual relationship power role-playing takes it so seriously? You are allowed to declare what those things mean to you, but do you seriously think that everything you said right there MUST apply to all people?


And I didn't say all RELATIONSHIPS are fun all the time. I said that PLAY should be fun all the time. I still maintain that. If you are not enjoying what you are doing, stop, and go do something else. I don't have sex, go dancing, watch TV, and say, "I hate this. I wish I was doing something else". It's people's CHOICES to get involved in a consensual master/slave relationship. If you hate being dominated, don't become a slave. If you like it, become one.

I wish people would lighten up about this. So much uptightness about such a first-world topic.
 
Wrong. You do not speak for "those of us in the lifestyle". You do not speak for anyone but YOU. I am repeating what I heard from OTHER people "in the lifestyle". This "our" and "those of us" when referring to people who practice, live, play, etc. BDSM is very patronizing and condescending, like "those of us not in the lifestyle" CANNOT POSSIBLY FATHOM the "lifestyle".

Also, people CAN practice or incorporate BDSM into their sex-lives as "play" and do not have to LIVE the LIFESTYLE. Just because you LIVE the LIFESTYLE does not make you some kind of ambassador or high-priestess. If God came down from Heaven and appointed you as some such authority, then someone failed to CC me when the memo was sent out.

You telling me how it is for "those in the lifestyle" is like someone trying to tell you about what it's like for "those of us who are poly".

Have your contract and your honor and your responsibility all you want. I'm happy for that, really I am. But do NOT presume to speak for anyone but yourself (and your submissives of course, since that is probably in the contract anyway).
wow...i feel this is somewhat unnecessarily vitriolic. I am merely expressing my opinion and experience as well as what I have discussed with others in the bdsm lifestyle and what I have observed. I never intended to be condescending and apologize if my response came off like that. Many people think (as I did years ago when I entered the bdsm realm) that bdsm is just about kinky sex. I actually know folks who have bdsm partners that they never engage sexually.

And I won't apologize for stressing a master's responsibility to protect and honor their slaves. If I had been MORE vocal and less of a coward about what a master's responsibility is and less of an ostrich, a dear friend of mine might still be alive.

And--I never said or inferred that people not in the lifestyle are incapable of 'understanding it'. What I will say is that bdsm IS more than just kinky sex and there are many misconceptions about bdsm just like there are about lots and lots of things in the world, including polyamory.
 
Last edited:
I suppose some people might treat it more casually than others, but I would say that, for most, you're absolutely not "playing" any more at that point. You're making a serious commitment to each other. For some, it's probably as significant as a marriage contract would be.

Are you basically saying that everyone who engages in some sort of consensual relationship power role-playing takes it so seriously? You are allowed to declare what those things mean to you, but do you seriously think that everything you said right there MUST apply to all people?

Um? I don't know, does that sound like what I said? Really confused by how you took that, honestly. I really think I qualified my statements about as much as humanly possible there. Obviously it's going to be different for different people (I actually used that phrase later in my post). I was just giving my best guess as to what a contract is LIKELY to mean to MOST people, which is something very different from a flogger or a butt plug. Ymmv and that's fine, I was never remotely trying to imply any sort of One True Way.

And I didn't say all RELATIONSHIPS are fun all the time. I said that PLAY should be fun all the time. I still maintain that. If you are not enjoying what you are doing, stop, and go do something else. I don't have sex, go dancing, watch TV, and say, "I hate this. I wish I was doing something else". It's people's CHOICES to get involved in a consensual master/slave relationship. If you hate being dominated, don't become a slave. If you like it, become one.

Right, but see, I think for most people (please note the two qualifying statements here -- that "I think" this to be the case, not that I know it as some absolute fact, and that I believe it applies to "most" people, not all people) a contract isn't about play. It's about a relationship and how you choose to structure it. And we're talking about contracts. So that's why I started talking about relationships.

None of that is meant to imply that people should get involved in scenarios that aren't right for them?? Again, really confused by the extrapolations you're making. Obviously it's a choice and you should only make it if you think it's right for you, I truly don't see how I might have implied that I thought otherwise.

But, just like any relationship role (again, I am talking about relationships, not play -- I do get the distinction, and I get that some people can engage in BDSM or D/s just for play, and that's fine, I honestly 1,000% believe that's fine, but I'm not talking about that right now because we're talking about contracts, and I think that most people who get to the point of writing out and adhering to contracts are committing to a relationship style and not just to play), you're almost certainly not going to like it all the time. A person who's committed to being someone's slave isn't going to like being a slave all the time any more than a person who's committed to being someone's spouse is going to like being a spouse all the time.

I wish people would lighten up about this. So much uptightness about such a first-world topic.

You seem to be getting way more upset than me or pollyanna have been so far, so it's kind of weird to see you saying people should lighten up?

Why do you have the right to a strong opinion, when this isn't actually something that you enjoy as more than play, and yet we're being uptight for having differing opinions, when we've built our lives and our loves around these concepts? Why is this topic less deserving of being taken seriously than, say, poly, that thing that we all expend so many words on every dang day, when in both cases it's about how we choose to love?
 
Last edited:
And--I never said or inferred that people not in the lifestyle are incapable of 'understanding it'. What I will say is that bdsm IS more than just kinky sex and there are many misconceptions about bdsm just like there are about lots and lots of things in the world, including polyamory.

BDSM *can* be just about kinky sex. Not everyone has to be "in the lifestyle". Not everyone considers polyamory a "lifestyle". You talk about misconceptions - there's one right there: that BDSM and polyamory are considered "lifestyles" by all who engage/share in certain activities, behaviours.
 
Um? I don't know, does that sound like what I said? Really confused by how you took that, honestly. I really think I qualified my statements about as much as humanly possible there. Obviously it's going to be different for different people (I actually used that phrase later in my post). I was just giving my best guess as to what a contract is LIKELY to mean to MOST people, which is something very different from a flogger or a butt plug. Ymmv and that's fine, I was never remotely trying to imply any sort of One True Way.

OK.


Right, but see, I think for most people (please note the two qualifying statements here -- that "I think" this to be the case, not that I know it as some absolute fact, and that I believe it applies to "most" people, not all people) a contract isn't about play. It's about a relationship and how you choose to structure it. And we're talking about contracts. So that's why I started talking about relationships.

I consider that a "play" contract because it isn't legally binding. If one person doesn't do what the contract says, do you take them to court to have it enforced?

None of that is meant to imply that people should get involved in scenarios that aren't right for them?? Again, really confused by the extrapolations you're making. Obviously it's a choice and you should only make it if you think it's right for you, I truly don't see how I might have implied that I thought otherwise.

Then in that case, the "contract" DOES function as a "prop", because if a person is doing something by choice because it is right for them, a contract is unnecessary. It was unclear whether that was part of your process of reasoning.
But, just like any relationship role (again, I am talking about relationships, not play -- I do get the distinction, and I get that some people can engage in BDSM or D/s just for play, and that's fine, I honestly 1,000% believe that's fine, but I'm not talking about that right now because we're talking about contracts, and I think that most people who get to the point of writing out and adhering to contracts are committing to a relationship style and not just to play), you're almost certainly not going to like it all the time. A person who's committed to being someone's slave isn't going to like being a slave all the time any more than a person who's committed to being someone's spouse is going to like being a spouse all the time.

I like being a spouse "all the time". Sometimes I get annoyed with my spouse, but i can honestly say that i don't have moments where i wish I wasn't married. Please don't say things like that because when I respond to them I feel as ridiculous as that sounds.

You seem to be getting way more upset than me or pollyanna have been so far, so it's kind of weird to see you saying people should lighten up

I'm not upset; you and pollyanna did not seem "upset". I am involved in a conversation where I am pointing out things I disagree with and why I disagree. I said there was "so much uptightness" about BDSM in general. That's not the same thing as saying you and pollyanna are "upset", and it doesn't mean I'm "upset", "more upset", etc.

Why do you have the right to a strong opinion, when this isn't actually something that you enjoy as more than play, and we're being uptight for having differing opinions, when we've built our lives and our loves around these concepts? Why is this topic less deserving of being taken seriously than, say, poly, that thing that we all expend so many words on every dang day, when in both cases it's about how we choose to love?

We all have the right to a "strong opinion". We do NOT have the right to dictate that our "strong opinion" applies to all people who do certain things in their relationships. You see, you are basically saying the same thing, that no one else has the right to speak for you, but out of the other side of your mouth you're saying that because you "live the lifestyle" and I "just play", that you have some authority to declare what it all means. Indeed, this topic is NOT any more or less "deserving" of being taken seriously than any other - which is exactly why I'm taking issue with use of language such as "those of us in the [whatever] lifestyle". People can "lighten up" and still take something seriously - ask any person "in the cancer lifestyle" and many of them will tell you that they have used humor to get through difficult times and still take their health and medical condition "seriously".

Come on Annabel. You're not stupid. You knew that's what I meant. You just wanted to bust my chops because it's, like, a thing.
 
Last edited:
I consider that a "play" contract because it isn't legally binding. If one person doesn't do what the contract says, do you take them to court to have it enforced?

Then in that case, the "contract" DOES function as a "prop", because if a person is doing something by choice because it is right for them, a contract is unnecessary. It was unclear whether that was part of your process of reasoning.

Let's consider a commitment ceremony that two people who either can't, or don't want to, access traditional marriage have together. Is that a "play" ceremony because it's not legally binding, are their vows a "prop" because they're doing what's right for them by choice? I don't see how something being a choice you make because it's right for you means that you're "playing".

I like being a spouse "all the time". Sometimes I get annoyed with my spouse, but i can honestly say that i don't have moments where i wish I wasn't married. Please don't say things like that because when I respond to them I feel as ridiculous as that sounds.

I absolutely know people who are glad they're married and yet have moments when they've wished they weren't. It doesn't sound ridiculous at all to me.

I'm not upset; you and pollyanna did not seem "upset". I am involved in a conversation where I am pointing out things I disagree with and why I disagree. I said there was "so much uptightness" about BDSM in general. That's not the same thing as saying you and pollyanna are "upset", and it doesn't mean I'm "upset", "more upset", etc.

Fair enough. Caps in text come off like shouting to me, and you were using a lot of caps.

We all have the right to a "strong opinion". We do NOT have the right to dictate that our "strong opinion" applies to all people who do certain things in their relationships.

Again, I seriously have never said, and would never say, that anything applied to all people of any type. I'm not sure why you're pulling that back out.

You see, you are basically saying the same thing, that no one else has the right to speak for you, but out of the other side of your mouth you're saying that because you "live the lifestyle" and I "just play", that you have some authority to declare what it all means.

I never used the phrase "live the lifestyle", I get what people mean by it but I don't like the terminology. I said we built our lives and loves around it, because we have. And, yeah, I do think that people who have had first-hand experience of something are likely to have more valid opinions than those who haven't. I don't, however, think that I have some authority to declare what it all means (where are you getting this? again and again you keep assigning these absolutist opinions to me that I don't have, and don't think I've mistakenly expressed), nor do I think that you don't the right to an opinion.

I actually went back and inserted the word "yet" here --
"Why do you have the right to a strong opinion, when this isn't actually something that you enjoy as more than play, and yet we're being uptight for having differing opinions, when we've built our lives and our loves around these concepts?"
-- to make it clearer that I wasn't trying to say that you didn't have a right to an opinion, but rather that I thought it was hypocritical to express a strong opinion and then imply that other people were being uptight for having their own strong opinions, especially on a topic that affects their day to day lives in a way which it doesn't affect yours, which is what it seemed to me you were doing.

Come on Annabel. You're not stupid. You knew that's what I meant. You just wanted to bust my chops because it's, like, a thing.

No, actually, I didn't. What you said came off to me as pretty offensive on the first read. When you're abrasive about things that are close to people's hearts, it's hard not to take it personally. This is the same complaint that lots of other people have had about your posting style, it makes it hard to parse out the content. It just generally hasn't been directed at me, so I haven't had to respond to it before, but I guess when it comes to some things I don't have much of a thicker skin than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought:

"Come on, you are not stupid - you knew that is what I meant" made me smirk. Never assume ... say what you mean. Communication should not involve guessing. If there was a part where you yourself can see that one could understand it differently from what you wanted to say, clarify it and acknowledge the possiblity that someone may have understood you in the wrong way.
 
Nyc-I like links for contracts on leathernroses.com.

They can be used in some arenas legally. They are a verbal contrac t or a written contact. In some places those are legally binding.
Also-as example; if one specifies that sexual intercourse is NOT agreed to, but ended up raped while tied up, that shoes there was no concent and could be used to Aid prosecution.
 
My contracts are the rules of the relationship. If they aren't upheld, I terminate the relationship, same as divorce.
This is true regarding my poly contract and my M/s relationship contracts. They are the vows of the relationship.

That said, when engaged in play within those relationships we may make a scenerio comtract only relevant for that scene.
 
They can be used in some arenas legally. They are a verbal contrac t or a written contact. In some places those are legally binding.
Also-as example; if one specifies that sexual intercourse is NOT agreed to, but ended up raped while tied up, that shoes there was no concent and could be used to Aid prosecution.

What places ? How many prosecutions of rape have ever used a slave contract to prove non consent ?

For those serious " in the lifestyle " the oxymoronic part is a slaves can't sign contracts ...because they are by definition under the control of another.
It's like free elections in communist countries. They happen but they're a joke.

HEY ...I think Ariel Castro got signed contracts ....he should be fine then...right. I wonder whose blog or website he pulled those off of.
 
If I had been MORE vocal and less of a coward about what a master's responsibility is and less of an ostrich, a dear friend of mine might still be alive.

In a discussion about BDSM, this might be worth elaborating on. Perhaps as a warning of what to look out for and avoid? What went wrong.
 
In a discussion about BDSM, this might be worth elaborating on. Perhaps as a warning of what to look out for and avoid? What went wrong.

oooh, you are right. I'm sorry.

Her mistress demanded the slave submit to her in all ways, socially, physically and financially even though the slave had children of her own to take care of. The slave was just a regular working woman--she did clerical work and struggled to make ends meet. The slave was not allowed to even purchase clothing for herself but ordered to buy things for the mistress. The slave paid all their travel expenses--for the mistress and whoever the mistress decided to bring along on the trips. The slave wasn't allowed to speak with anyone without the mistress's permission. Every now and then the slave and i would have lunch together but she would beg me not to tell anyone so she wouldn't get in trouble.

The slave gave until she had nothing left to give. We were all at a kink party one weekend and the slave had told the mistress she was sick. The mistress told her 'suck it up, buttercup' and the slave-who had been in and out of the hospital for 3 months at this juncture-had to hide in our room to take a short rest periodically throughout the evening, asking me to come wake her if the 'lady' called for her because she didn't want to get in trouble. She waited on this woman hand and foot and did nothing without permission. The mistress denied her permission to seek medical treatment. Slave gave so much of her money to make the mistress happy that the slave refused to go to the hospital again because she didn't have the money to pay the medical bills.

A few days after the party, the slave finally was so sick she had to go to the hospital. That day her 'Lady' posted on fetlife that her slave had asked to be released and she was now looking for a new slave. And, no, please don't ask the slave about it...it was too personal. A couple days later the slave died and that wretched woman deleted the ad for a new slave, posted loving pictures of the slave, and accepted condolences. Those few of us in whom the slave had confided were sickened by the callous behavior of the 'Lady' and by the hypocrisy of the same.

We felt we had let our friend down. That, as members of the community, we should have done something to save our friend's life. We should have insisted she go to the hospital. There was a date rapist known in our community and anytime his name came up, women were warned that he wasn't safe. Same thing with the scam artist who stole thousands of dollars from various people in the group.

The slave had such a deep=seated need to be controlled and to please that she gave past the point of what she should have/could give. But i lay the blame for the episode at the feet of the mistress who, imo, had the ethical responsibility to NOT misuse or abuse the nature of the slave for her own gain. She should have listened when the slave said she was too sick to go to a party. Slaves have needs but meeting the psychological needs don't include taking unfair advantage of someone whose basic nature is to serve and please others.

And to top it all off...the slave was always very careful to keep her 'extracurricular activities' from the knowledge of her children. That wretched woman attended the slave's memorial service and outed her to her children and family. Absolutey reprehensible, imo.

so, she did not die from bdsm gone awry...she died from neglect--on more than one front. I feel so guilty for not being more forceful in helping her.
 
Nyc-I like links for contracts on leathernroses.com

There are so many sections to that site, but I cannot tell which one has sample contracts by the table of contents on their home page - can you give me the url to the page where their contracts are?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top