Slave Contracts And The Law

Disclaimer

I am going to be talking about general concepts regarding the legal issues with contracts. This is by no means firm legal advice and should not be held as such. If you want that, go and pay a lawyer for it.

Laws also change from state to state and country-to-country so it is probably worth getting specific local advice as well if you are concerned. This is written from a UK/US perspective.

It Is Not A Legal Document

A slave contract can be a lot of very positive things. It allows many aspects of the relationship to be thought through and discussed beforehand, helping avoid misunderstandings and heartache later. What it is not is a legal document.

Slavery is illegal. Even consensual sadism and masochism is illegal in most places. In the British "Spanner Case" practicing sado-masochists were charged for abuse, completely ignoring the wishes of the masochists. In fact, when the masochists refused to be a part of the prosecution, they were threatened with being charged as accomplices to their own assaults.

Even in the best of cases, consent to have what the law regards as a crime committed against you does nothing to excuse the perpetrator from prosecution. Take euthanasia for example - despite a patient's wishes, and despite [in some cases] it clearly being in the patient's best interests, it is still a crime to help end someone's life.

A slave contract, though it demonstrates that both parties willingly entered in to it, even at the urging of the would-be slave, does not excuse the owner from any legal offences they may be committing.

It Is Not Illegal Either

As far as anyone can tell, it is not illegal to write one, either. Yes, slavery is illegal but then slave contracts, as mentioned above, are not taken to be a legal document - more a theatrical prop for spicing up people's private lives.

Attempting to convince a slave that they are owned, in the traditional sense of slavery, regardless of consent, changes things. In that case you are actively taking away someone else's rights and are breaching whatever laws are in place regarding slavery. That said, this should not be an issue as, with the by-words of Safe/Sane/Consensual, consensual release should always be something that is considered and included within any contract.

It Is Evidence (In The Non-Legal Sense)

Slave contracts, while not legal documents, are still pieces of paper that people can bring up later to demonstrate that the relationship did exist. Granted, this evidence may carry little weight, but it can still be a factor.

On the positive side, it shows that a slave consented to be in the position they were in and so may have a bearing on anything that comes up later where consent was an issue. While this can not protect you from assault charges (an assault is still an assault, regardless of consent), it can help to differentiate between sex and rape. Remember though, just as with rape charges in the vanilla world, if someone gave their consent once, that does not prove they were giving it at the time of an alleged offence.

The negative side is that it forms a lasting piece of evidence that you [at least intended to] do whatever is included within. Whether it is with the consent or not of the slave, any prosecution against you can no doubt make it look pretty damning.

While we have been talking about the legal issues, it is worth considering that they may often be the least of your worries. If someone sets out to destroy your reputation, a slave contract with your signature at the bottom can be as damning as any other form of evidence of your kinkiness. Is it something you want to risk having a copy of sent to your boss? Your children's school? Your family? Your landlord? Your church?

Does It Oblige You To Support Them Evermore?

The last concern that I have been seeing come up is whether or not a contract in which you promise to support someone, however legally invalid, can be held against you. The consensus here appears to be that while the contract does not directly oblige you to continue providing support, a lot of places have laws that do.

In England, common law dictates that if you live with someone for six months or more and contribute towards the upkeep of a property in some quantifiable way (it does not have to be financial, it may be through domestic duties - which often falls in to slave contracts) then you are entitled to a part of the value of that property.

In the US, a nation that will happily take anything to court, people have been sued for alimony after failed engagements as the ditched partner felt that they had been 'promised' a share of the other's future life and earnings.

Ultimately, while the contract is likely to have no particular legal value, it does once again show intent, the existence of, and the nature of the relationship. You are not likely to find yourself liable to anything extra because of the contract but you may find it used to help pursue whatever the other is already entitled to - or feels themselves to be entitled to.

Conclusion

The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is simply that slave contracts are not legal documents. Nor will they save you from any laws. They are documents that show people's intent, however, and that can be enough for people to cause all kinds of trouble. The advice remains - be careful who you trust.

If you are careful, slave contracts remain a good way of exploring the boundaries and expectations of a relationship. As they say in the book The Ethical Slut, "There is nothing so pure in life that it can not be corrupted." So, be careful, accept it for what it is, and enjoy it for the many good things it brings.

More Disclaimer

This piece has addressed the general concepts from a layman's point-of-view. It is not legal advice from a lawyer. If you really need concrete advice, relevant to wherever you live, always consult a qualified lawyer.

New Information

In a case that came up after writing this article, a woman who apparently consented to fairly heavy S/M and then later claimed it was abuse had the charges she levelled against her former Dom dismissed. The contract itself was not formally admitted as evidence but aspects of it were used as part of forming a general image of her having given her consent. The safewords that her contract gave her were not used and the injuries she had (from branding amongst other things) indicated that neither he was in the rage she maintained nor that she attempted to struggle. While this does not lend any particular legal credability to a slave document, it does imply that it is possible (in some areas at least) for consent to be brought in to consideration in borderline cases.