The entire contract thing is tricky in one sense since these contracts, being legally unenforceable, lack the ultimate hammer (i. e., legal recourse) and thus ultimately lose much of their potential force. But they are important and I'm sure in most cases feel "enforceable" in emotional terms (and certainly can have emotional consequences). So the area is interesting and important in this realm.
thisgirl proposes a "Dom contract" that goes like this:
I agree to be your dominant.
I agree to look after you and to not abuse the control you have given me and the trust you have put in me.
I want to help develop and nurture your submission and help you understand this side of yourself.
I want to control you without taking over your life or ruining the parts of you that make you the woman I love.
I will never make you feel worthless or put you down. Though i cant promise not to say ‘your bum looks big in that’ because I will always be honest with you.
I will always be imaginative and inventive and most of all devious.
I will torture your body and push it to your limits but not overstep your boundaries.
I will keep the play interesting and not let it get boring or stale.
I will *never* wear a leather waistcoat, a flogger on my belt or parade around topless in fetish clubs but do my best to make *us* look and feel good.
I will show off my property and be proud always that you belong to me.
I will use you for my pleasure but make sure you get pleasure back (unless you’ve been really bad!)
I will loving control your body, your orgasms and your mind.
I will love you when you are bad just as much as when you’re obedient.
In return i want :-
Your submission
Your obedience
Your love
I want to share my fantasies with you and most of all to have fun and be happy together.
she then asks: "So . . . would he sign it?"
My answer to that is "I don't know if He would sign it but what submissive wouldn't?And that's My problem.
thisgirl points out that these contracts are "relatively one-sided." Exactly. They're supposed to be. The relationship is inherently unequal. Master/Mistress and slave are "equal" as human beings, they are equal under the Constitution and the law, but they are not, in the terms that these contracts seek to address, in any way equal. That such contracts have no legal enforceability under US law emphasizes the point that the contract describes (and seeks to maintain) a state of affairs that is not equal. The quid pro quo aspect of typical contracts does not apply.
So for the submissive there has to be some "risk" in signing the contract, some area or factor(s) that leave at least a hint of uncomfortableness. Without that element the contract feels like a cubic zirconium engagement ring: important perhaps as a symbol but of extremely limited value.
All the usual disclaimers apply: If you submit when you feel like it, if you are casual play partners, if your Dom/me gives off weird psychokiller vibes, etc., then signing a contract isn't on the menu. Presumably, if the parties are at the point of contract signing, the "worthiness" of the Dominant is a settled question.
So, while I can't speak for any other Dominant, I wouldn't sign the contract thisgirl proposes.
