O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
 |
| MasterRonnie |
on Sun 14 Nov 10, 11:08 PM to the O_and_P group.
Hi, this is my first post on IC so I hope you will be kind 
As my profile states I have been with my girl since school and we have been married for over 25 years. However, we have only found the lifestyle in the last seven years or so. I have accepted girl's commitment but in the terms of internal enslavement there is some way to go. It has occurred to me that marriage is a contradiction to ownership or at least superfluous. There are no legal or financial benefits these days either. In fact I feel it would be a more binding form of enslavement if we weren't married. So to cut a long OP short I was wondering if people ever divorce to enhance the relevance of their TPE or IE relationship?
| 17 Nov 10, 10:53 PM sirsangel UK, 6 yrs |
Absolutely not!
| |||
| 17 Nov 10, 11:44 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs      |
It would seem an extraordinary thing to do and, were I an a marriage as sucessful as yours appears, I could absolutely not bring myself to do as you suggest. Having said that, I think I can see your point, in theory. If you have moved from a successful marriage into an O&P relationship you might feel you want to surround that with a new set of vows or you might feel the current set doesn't now express how you feel about eachother. You can always make new vows I guess, without dispensing with the old. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 18 Nov 10, 8:32 PM misunderstoodslave UK(OL), 2 yrs |
Um, yes there are. Seriously. Don't you want your wife/possession to be your next of kin, to benefit from pension rights in the event of your death, to inherit a certain amount automatically if you are among the depressingly large number who haven't made a will? Why does your marriage have to be set aside to reinforce your o & p relationship. Your marriage may be where you were, rather than where you are now, but it is part of you, a signpost along the way of your relationship. It doesn't invalidate the o & p side that I can see. And there are those practical issues above. Why pay the state £300 + for a divorce? Don't see the point really. Your decision, of course, so hope I don't sound too didactic. (probably do.) | |||
| 18 Nov 10, 8:58 PM Shypeachybottom UK, 20 mths |
^^^ Agreed, there absolutely are legal and financial benefits for your wife. You can speak to the Citizens' Advice Bureau and get some information from them. Even setting them aside, are you really saying that because your O&P relationship has developped, she is somehow less 'worthy' of being your wife? I have to say, I completely agree with @Misunderstoodslave and would urge you to think this through really really carefully, as you could be doing lots of harm to your wife/partner/property for the future (with - inmho - very little benefit), and surely as her owner, your duty to protect and care for her is at least as important (if not more) as it is as her husband? | |||
| 20 Nov 10, 4:38 PM MissKimberley NL, 8 yrs    |
It would seem a little odd but hey, there are no rules as to how you should live your life. However, I would echo what was written above: why give up what you already have? “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” - George Orwell | |||
| 20 Nov 10, 4:54 PM SinPar US, 12 yrs |
SinPar
-- The weak are the most treacherous of us all. They come to the strong and drain them. They are bottomless. They are insatiable. They are always parched and always bitter. They are everyone's concern, and like vampires they suck our life's blood. (Bette Davis) | |||
| 20 Nov 10, 8:02 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I wonder how someone can look after a sub properly within a marriage without realising there are massive legal differences between being married and not! Go forth and do a web search. Living in sin you get nothing from your other half if you split up. Married either might well have to pay rather a lot to the other. In addition there is no inheritance tax if you're married but if you're not then you may be handing 40% to the state on death and be rendered homeless. There are huge differences. Also you could argue you n're not properly owned unless someone is committed enough to marry you. Marriage and ownership go very well together - see vows.... "I N. take thee M. to my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth." | |||
| 20 Nov 10, 8:23 PM Tanos  UK(M), 14 yrs  |
That's the one potential upside to divorcing to pursue some kind of ownership that I can think of, as reducing the property's ability to force their own way helps establish ownership. Forcing a sale of the house if the relationship breaks down is quite a lot of power still to have, for example. I can see many more downsides, starting from the legal complications if either person dies suddenly. If there are children, there are even more serious implications. :T: www.tanos.org.uk Edited 20 Nov 10, 8:24 PM by Tanos | |||
| 20 Nov 10, 9:51 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
Very true. Take all and leave her totally exposed with no power and total reliance on you save for residual legal rights to leave. Make her give up all career so she has no income either and hand over all property and then you have total vulnerability and dependence. That though would make me say foolish girl, like those who move in without a ring or a promise given how many are then let down. it isn't wise nor perhaps wise to let anyone make themselves that vulnerable although I can obviously understand it from an O&P perspective - you plunder the slave from abroad and take her naked to the UK and keep even her passport away from her, ensure she doesn't speak the language and is totally dependent on you and she's likely to stick around but surely much nicer if she sticks around because of love and in a situation where she could do rather well out of leaving? The public promise to be together for life with rather nasty consequences if you split up is may be the responsibility side of dominance, the give which goes with the take ...although I'm the worst person to be setting out this line of argument having paid out so such to a man on a divorce. I should be peddling the view - never marry or you'll end up in my position if I had any sense. Marriage seems more committed. People stay together more if they're married and that's better for children and it just feels nicer and less casual.
| |||
| 20 Nov 10, 9:56 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
You know, ClassAct2005, I really did wonder whether you would get as far as the second paragraph before having a rant that was only tangentially related to the first :T: www.tanos.org.uk |
