Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Lovers for Lease?

A recent post on Eros Blog by Aphrodite was too juicy for me to pass up.

But I wonder.....is it ever a good idea to think that you own part of your lover? Steff's right, nobody "owns title" on a lover, but even the idea of having a "lease on part of their lives" squicks me. To me that sounds too much like "I own this part of you," and I usually have a hard enough time controlling my life to want the extra work of controlling part of somebody else's.

Christ on a crutch, but do I agree with that. Heinlein, though nowhere near being my favorite author, popped up with pithy little nuggets of wisdom now and again. He once said that sex invests no property rights. I also tend to take it a bit further. Relationships do not invest property rights. That is not to say there are no rights conferred with the formation of a relationship, but ownership is not one of them.

At a basic level, simply by entering into a relationship, the parties have an expectation and right to be treated with respect. One does not generally remain in a relationship where the other person is erratic and displays absolutely no regard for them. Those that do are broken on a fundamental level and not worthy of sympathy unless and until they take steps to fix themselves.

Some people will take umbrage at that saying that their 24/7 master-slave relationship is just as healthy as more mainstream relationships, but they or their slave live to be debased and utterly subservient. They need to get over themselves and stop reacting before they think. Even the more stringent and involved master-slave relationship needs respect. No slave is going to want to serve someone they can't/don't respect. No master wants a slave that is utterly useless. The master has to respect their abilities to serve.

Other rights often include emotional vulnerability, honesty, affection, being listened to, and drafting whatever rules and responsibilities the parties involved deem appropriate. My SO and I stay with each other by choice; I would no sooner accept someone declaring ownership of me as she would of someone attempting to annex her. Suffice to say, such action would be met with ruthless hostility. You cannot gain "equity" upon someone's person.

D/s play is separate from my point. There, all parties agree on how the games go, and they're there because they want to be there. They're choosing. If there's relationship papers involved, titles or leases or whatever, then some amount of choice gets lost.


Only to a point. With choosing to enter such a relationship they are agreeing to suspend their rights to one extent or another. No one can cede or abdicate their right to withdraw consent. Slavery is lifestyle choice. The instant slave says, "Screw this shit, I'm outta here." and the master does not release them, it is no longer consensual and has entered the realm of serious criminal charges. Consent in a lot of cases is the only thing keeping bdsm play from meeting the legal requirements for torture, imprisonment, and assault and even then, some things are far into the grey.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home