I'm probably going to be sorry for bringing this up again, but

[johnaries]

during the last coupla weeks there were several posts in GD about a "sick" marriage contract that a woman presented as evidence in divorce court.

There were several threads, I did a quick search but couldn't find them and then got too lazy to do a better search. But you probably either remember them or can find them quicker than I can.

For those of you who remember and/or recognize the threads that I am referring to, I apologize because I wanted to respond to those threads in great detail but couldn't for a number of reasons.

First of all, let me begin that the gentleman in the lawsuit was in the wrong - not because of the contract, but because he tried to force the contract on somone who did not agree to it.

Secondly, let me say that the lady in the lawsuit was wrong, because she led the gentleman to believe that she agreed to the terms of the contract without actually signing it.

As for the contract itself which so many people have labled as "sick and disgusting", well, before you rush to judgement there are some things you need to learn about human nature and contracts.

There is a multitude of sub-cultures that "polite society" and Fundies pretend doesn't exist. It upsets their world-view. Especially when that sub-culture proves to be more "humane" than "dominant" world views.

Getting back to the "sick and disgusting" marriage contract":
It is based on a standard Dominant/Submissive relationhip contract. A contract in which both parties agree.

In the past, most marriages were Dom/Sub relationships except most subs didn't have a choice. The wife was expected to perform her "wifely duties". Except, she didn't know what her "wifely duties" were until after she was married!

In our world of ever-changing opinions and attitudes, some people like some simple. non-ambiguous structure in their lives. They also like a reward-punishment system that reinforces that perceived structure. Men and Women alike.

The Dom-Sub contracts are NOT gender-specific.

In many cases that I've seen, the "sub" actually controls the most important emotional aspects of the relationship. That may sound contradictory, but it is nevertheless true. Many times, it is simplty a case of "compensation".

To sum up, many have tried to persecute this man because of the "conditions" of the contract. That is wrong. Many couples have agreed to similar contracts and it has greatly enhanced their relationships.

He is guilty of trying to force a contract on his wife that she didn't agree to. As far as the provisions of that contract - totally irrelevant!

Similar contracts have saved many marriages and enhanced any relationships! If you, personally, don't like the contract, then don't sign it!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. "If you, personally, don't like the contract, then don't sign it!"

Ummmm, she didn't. You even said so yourself.

And though I'm not going to be overly harsh, I do wonder why with all the things going on right now this is the thing chosen as offensive that required clarification. No biggie though.

[johnaries]

8. OK, she didn't sign the contract, but she MARRIED him,

which is another contract.

Why did she agree to one but not the other?

True, he also agreed to the one despite the fact she didn't agree to both.

I'm sorry, I get the impression she set him up.

[RagingInMiami]

2. I remember that thread, but I was never able to see the contract

When I clicked on the link. It lead to the blog, but never to the actual contract.


If you find it, let me know so I can print it out for next time I wake up and find myself engaged.

[DS1]

5. Here you go

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html

[RagingInMiami]

9. Weird

The problem was that the contract wouldn't come up on Firefox. But when I tried on IE, it comes right up.

[Skittles]

6. oh, it was sick

basically one person getting their rocks off humiliating another human being; anyone willing to play either role seriously needs their head examined

[DS1]

3. Many of the comments on DU regarding this contract noted

that it was of a bondage/dom nature at heart, and that she didn't sign it.

So, I guess your entire post is moot, because we've gone over that angle in full, too.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. Sound points

Someone had earlier brought up your point that it looks like a standard dom/sub contract.

However, I don't think the enforcement of the contract was the point of the original posts. I don't recall there was any discussion that hubby had actually tried to carry out its terms. IIRC, they are in the midst of a divorce and she released it for something akin to embarrassment factor.

[tocqueville]

7. whatever kind of sexuality it may be, it must be consensual

consensual means mutual understanding and acceptance, participation. Putting it in print and trying to have a "legally binding" sexuality, seemms to me a sign of basic mistrust...