Domination & submission _ the BDSM relationship handbook ( PDFDrive )

marriage debate currently raging in the American political arena. Nothing stops
same-sex couples from entering into contracts that grant each partner the same
legal rights and privileges that heterosexual partners are legally able to grant one
another. In fact, a contract such as a general power of attorney grants more
rights and privileges than any marriage does, such as the right to sign your
partner’s name to a contract, or to access his or her private bank accounts! The
issue at the heart of same-sex marriage is government recognition and
participation in same-sex marriages, and the couple’s entitlement to the legal
rights and privileges that governments grant as a condition of that contract.
Some activists ask, why does the government recognize and reward some types
of marriages, and not others? What are the legal or ethical arguments against
slave marriages, plural marriages, arranged marriages, corporate marriages,
child marriages, or even inter-species marriages? And no, simply posing the
question should not be interpreted as advocacy for any of those notions, some of
which are admittedly somewhat extreme. But perhaps it would be appropriate to
ask, why is the government involved in the business of marriage at all?
Slave contracts are fairly common in the D/s lifestyle, though you are far more
likely to encounter them in the online BDSM culture than you will in real-life.
The reality that slave contracts are neither legal nor enforceable makes little
difference in an online environment where Masters often don’t even know their
slave’s real name, age, or gender. The real problem with most slave contracts
isn’t the fact that they’re not legal; it’s mostly related to the fact that even if they
were legal, they’d still be unenforceable.
Take, for example, the following verbiage which has been taken directly from a
slave contract that is commonly used:
“The parties shall conduct themselves in light of their goals at all times.
The goals of the parties are detailed in Section 2(b) of this contract.”
There’s a glaring problem with this sort of fuzzy language; it has no real legal
definition. What, exactly, does it mean to conduct one’s self “in light” of
something? How do you measure it? At what point does one’s behavior pass
from being in light of a goal to not being in light of a goal?
“The parties shall treat each other with mutual respect and honesty at all
times.”
That seems pretty straightforward. You’re probably thinking, what could