Well, I
don’t know which out-of-date law books you’ve been reading, Mr Harris, but as
your attorney I have to inform you that you are labouring under a complete
misapprehension. There hasn’t been
‘alimony’ for over ten years, now.
There’s no question of your retaining any money, once you’re no longer
married! Your joint bank account will be
closed so of course any income you receive will be paid into hers, for a period of time of not less than eight years.
What? Division between the parties? What are you talking about? In a lesbian marriage sure, there’s a need to split the property. But there’s only one female party in this case, so of course everything goes to her.
No – the
only question for the judge is whether you’ll be sufficiently self-motivated to
continue to work hard under these arrangements, or whether she should be given
possession of you for a period of time to ensure collection.
only question for the judge is whether you’ll be sufficiently self-motivated to
continue to work hard under these arrangements, or whether she should be given
possession of you for a period of time to ensure collection.
Hmmm? Well, yes of course that would be slavery Mr
Harris. What else did you expect?
Harris. What else did you expect?
Now… your
wife’s lawyers are insisting on 25 years slavery with full punitive rights as a
non-negotiable item in the settlement.
But that’s probably just a tactic.
If we offer – say – ten years in her service, with whipping rights but
no branding, we’d probably get into a negotiation and with a bit of luck you’ll
be out of chains in, oh, fifteen years at the most, without too much damage.
wife’s lawyers are insisting on 25 years slavery with full punitive rights as a
non-negotiable item in the settlement.
But that’s probably just a tactic.
If we offer – say – ten years in her service, with whipping rights but
no branding, we’d probably get into a negotiation and with a bit of luck you’ll
be out of chains in, oh, fifteen years at the most, without too much damage.
Hmmm. Oh dear.
Except we have Judge Elliott.
She’s not usually very favourable to men. How do you feel about offering your wife
castration rights? That could sway
things quite a bit. We can try for a
guarantee of anesthetic, if you’re squeamish.
Except we have Judge Elliott.
She’s not usually very favourable to men. How do you feel about offering your wife
castration rights? That could sway
things quite a bit. We can try for a
guarantee of anesthetic, if you’re squeamish.
My fees, Mr Harris? Oh don’t worry about that. The question of legal fees won’t even arise until you’ve completed your period of servitude to her. Then the accumulated sum and interest is converted to a simple annual payment, with a court-appointed overseer given whipping rights to ensure collection. But my fees will be quite light – don’t worry. Of course, you’ll have to pay her lawyers too. But in any case, that’s at least fifteen years away, so I wouldn’t worry about it now.
Now… your wife’s likely to want to put you over the witness bench and have you cross-examined. So the court can determine how badly you’ve behaved to her. So, let’s make a list of all the ways you have wronged her over the years. Selfishness, harsh words, betrayal, unkind thoughts about her… that kind of thing. It’s best to be as honest as possible with me at this stage, as it will all come out in court, anyway. Opposing counsel can be very persuasive and they can keep you strapped there over the witness bench as long as they like.
What’s that, Mr Harris? Have I ever been through a divorce? What a peculiar question to ask your lawyer. Yes, I have as a matter of fact. Twice, actually. So I suppose I do know a bit about what you’re going through.
Hmmm? Yes, I suppose my ex-husbands do know all about it too! I don’t know much about what they thought of it, though. I don’t really speak to them very often. And of course, they’re not allowed to speak without my permission or in response to a specific order, so we don’t talk much.
No, they’re not here. I don’t keep them in the office. The man scrubbing the floor you probably saw on the way in belongs to Julie, my secretary. I handled the case for her, actually. Believe me – you do not want to end up like him! We ended up setting a legal precedent there – he’d only been married six months but she got him for twenty-seven years! Quite a triumph. But I’m on your side in this one – so you’ve really nothing to worry about. Have you?
As you might have realised, the part of the helpful divorce lawyer in this tale was played by the glorious Eleise de Lacy. Yeay!
You don't often have such a kind lady.
Absolutely fabulous and so erotically one sided.
Femsup
No indeed. I can't afford it, for one thing.
Fairness is a much over-rated virtue. When my SO and I play chess, she has two queens and I have none, just as it should be.
Can you make more storieslike this?! Maybe involving chastity too! Would love it!
I shall do my best, after all it's been eight years since this one. Although to be honest, with enough pictures of Mistress Eleise, I could just write text consisting of the first few thousand digits of pi around them and it would still constitute an erotic adventure.
Best wishes
S
One far-fetched detail: why would Mr. Harris’ attorney do any work for a payout that won’t come for another eight years, and may not come for twenty-five years?
Far-fetched, Mr A? I hope you’re not impuning this site’s long-established reputation for scrupulous accuracy and realism?
In a word: securitisation. Obviously Ms Eleise is not going to wait for her cash, but there are numerous financial organisations that will happily take on the role of collecting on her client’s future payments, while providing her with a cash sum in exchange. The whipping rights on the asset offered as collateral (specifically: Mr Harris) help to ensure that it’s an attractively reliable income stream, to an investor with a sufficiently long time horizon and a total disregard for any considerations of mercy – and they’re not in short supply.
Honestly, do you think I don’t think these things through? Me? OK, you’re right, but as my SO likes to say, I’m good at coming up with excuses and explanations later. It does me no good with her, of course.
Best wishes
S
That’s good, then, because it means he could get excellent counsel during the divorce. I hope it turned out well for him. He seems a decent man.
Well… he is and he isn’t , you know? It’s often that way: someone can seem entirely decent to everyone else but isn’t the same with his partner. I don’t know much about their marriage but I do know she was very frustrated, almost from the very first day. She developed some coping strategies, managed to assert herself and tried to put her own needs first, but obviously eventually decided that half-measures wouldn’t work.
Best wishes
S