When i first read the contract, it didn't sit right with me, and after reading Ruby's post, I understand what bothered me and want to share that. I would just like to reiterate a few points Ruby made, as well as make a few new ones of my own.

First of all, the Master can give the slave to whomever he wishes. To me, a Master wanting to give away his slave, thereby relinquishing control over her, for any period of time (obviously this excludes time when the slave and/or Master is at work, doing errands, etc. while alone), is completely irresponsible. It may be acceptable to allow another Master to direct/control the slave for a period of time if both the slave and her Master know and trust the other Master, but i know i would not be comfortable with it, especially because the contract says nothing about the slave knowing or trusting the other Master, or what happens if the other Master somehow hurts the slave.

The contract allows the Master to introduce other people into the relationship without regard to the slave's feelings about it. A Master is completely responsible for the slave's feelings, security, etc., and to bring another person into the relationship, in any way, without the slave being fully supportive could seriously damage the existing relationship between the Master and slave.

The contract excludes oral-anal contact and consuming feces from the slave's veto power. The intestines and fecal matter itself contain bacteria and sometimes parasites. It is intrinsically dirty, but if the Master orders the slave to consume fecal matter or lick an unclean anus, what can she do? Although this could be damaging to the slave's health, the contract does not recognize this. According to the contract, she can do nothing.

What if the loving Master turns out to be a narcissistic con-artist? What does the slave do then? Although not legally held by the contract, the slave is bound psychologically, and it could be very damaging to the slave to both be in the relationship where she is not being taken care of as well as leave the relationship and suffer all sorts of guilt over breaking the contract. Also, if she has signed over her possessions, possibly including a car, a house, one or more bank accounts, retirement accounts, stocks, etc., what does she do then?

When i read the line about the contract terminating at the death of the slave, i almost laughed. The Master kills the slave - whoops! looks like the contract is null and void! - and then what happens? As Ruby said, is there any recourse for the slave's family? Legally, at least, the family could probably sue the Master for damages and the Master could possibly be held to a manslaughter charge, but all of that is a bit late for the slave, especially if the Master was irresponsible in his actions.

Finally, the contract doesn't provide for any of the practicalities of life - children, jobs, retirement, money management, etc. The contract, in and of itself, is impractical.

I don't mean to alienate anyone who has either agreed to a contract like this or thinks it's a good idea - i do think contracts between Masters and slaves can be good, depending on how they're written - but i advise everyone to think critically and analytically when it comes to things like this. These contracts have the potential to be very damaging to one's life.

What do all of you think? Have you/did you ever agree to a contract? How has it/did it work? Do you think they're a good/bad idea?