✖ ✖ A Proposition Question for the Ladies ✖

[Leopard]

Person A has had a somewhat successful career (let's say he's 30, not fat or hairy) and has made around $9 million. Then he finds out that he has a disease, a medical time bomb in his brain that means he will die in 6 months. There will be no other symptoms or sickness beforehand.

Because of this, Person A has decided to hire a girl for 3 months. She will be paid $3 million for this time. There will be a week of initial meetings to talk in public locations, and have several play sessions, then after that she will be in his mansion unable to leave (outside phone calls are allowed.) Basically her life will be on hold for the 3 months. She will be paid weekly in advance for her time.

The condition is that she must obey everything he says, with the only limits being permanent damage / dangerous activities, and illegal activities. Her health and wellbeing must also be cared for the entire time (proper meals, exercise, talk, etc.) Once she commits she must complete the full 3 months.

So the question is: how many girls would go for this? What sorts of worries or stipulations would you have?

[sweetsong]

I don't know if I can be separated from my iPhone for that long....

And I think I'd be worried about all the normal things. o.o Like is he a psycho or a liar or or or....

Millions of $$ make it tempting though. ;D

[Leopard]

Originally Posted by sweetsong

I don't know if I can be separated from my iPhone for that long....

And I think I'd be worried about all the normal things. o.o Like is he a psycho or a liar or or or....

Millions of $$ make it tempting though. ;D

Well the psycho/liar stuff is why there's a week or two of meetings first, are paid in advances so you know you aren't being cheated, and are encouraged to keep in general contact with other people. Obviously someone could be a psycho that seems nice for awhile then locks you up, but that's a risk with anyone xD

I was thinking it'd be more a question of peoples' personal ethics: i.e. it's essentially prostitution, but it's also a one time engagement with you choosing the client and a huge payout - really no different from a gold digger marrying a rich old man.

You can have your iPhone, just not sit on it the entire day :P

[jlstockton25]

Hmm as a psychology major this question/scenario definitely intrigued me. It sort of comes down to "how much money would it take to sell your freedom."

For me personally, even if I didn't have a family of my own, no amount of money would entice me to give up my freedom for three months. Hypothetically I think you're trying to get the point across that everything in this scenario is on the up and up payout and mental health wise, but even in the "perfect situation" I don't think I could completely give myself up for three months for money.

I think there comes a time when even the most submissive human gives in to the desire for autonomy. In a consensual Dom/slave relationship where no money is at stake, the power lies in the hands of the submissive partner to determine if lines have been crossed. However, add in a financial aspect and those lines quickly become blurred.

I might even go so far as to say that if a woman was to agree to these terms as is, and never protest to any request from "person A," their mental health may become permanently altered. Humans simply aren't meant to not think for themselves all the time. Giving yourself over 100% to a partner for hours or possibly days at a time is feasible, but not being able to say no at all unless your physical health is at risk for three months has the potential to have a serious impact on how you view the world when time is up, even if you consent.

To alter this situation so that I would agree to it, I would need the length of time of my submission to be in much shorter increments. If someone offered me 3 million to follow their every command (save for putting myself in dangerous situations) for three hours a day for a year I'd be much more likely to agree to those terms. I would need to be able to retain my identity, and I feel like the proposition as is simply doesn't allow for that.

[Leopard]

Originally Posted by jlstockton25

Hmm as a psychology major this question/scenario definitely intrigued me. It sort of comes down to "how much money would it take to sell your freedom."

For me personally, even if I didn't have a family of my own, no amount of money would entice me to give up my freedom for three months. Hypothetically I think you're trying to get the point across that everything in this scenario is on the up and up payout and mental health wise, but even in the "perfect situation" I don't think I could completely give myself up for three months for money.

I think there comes a time when even the most submissive human gives in to the desire for autonomy. In a consensual Dom/slave relationship where no money is at stake, the power lies in the hands of the submissive partner to determine if lines have been crossed. However, add in a financial aspect and those lines quickly become blurred.

I might even go so far as to say that if a woman was to agree to these terms as is, and never protest to any request from "person A," their mental health may become permanently altered. Humans simply aren't meant to not think for themselves all the time. Giving yourself over 100% to a partner for hours or possibly days at a time is feasible, but not being able to say no at all unless your physical health is at risk for three months has the potential to have a serious impact on how you view the world when time is up, even if you consent.

To alter this situation so that I would agree to it, I would need the length of time of my submission to be in much shorter increments. If someone offered me 3 million to follow their every command (save for putting myself in dangerous situations) for three hours a day for a year I'd be much more likely to agree to those terms. I would need to be able to retain my identity, and I feel like the proposition as is simply doesn't allow for that.

Fantastic answer! I was thinking much the same thing - I was actually going to change permanent damage to permanent physical damage because I thought that permanent mental changes may well be in inevitable, but I didn't want it to be too leading.

The scenario I had in my mind was that the female would remain present in the house, on call if needed, so to speak, but basically free to use a computer / iphone (hence encouraged to speak with friends, browse, whatever) so as to retain perspective and identity. But I suppose a lot of people need to actually get out and amongst others to do that, too.

[EmmaLang]

I would do it no problem.

No limits and no bouderies.

[Hannah.96]

I'd do it for that much money

[jlstockton25]

Even with regular technological access, I'd still feel like I needed basic human interaction or I'd start to lose my mind lol.

If there were scheduled nights (say 5 of the 7 nights of the week), plus bonuses for coming when it wasn't predetermined that would increase my odds of consenting a ton. That way I would still feel like I had some sense of control over my life, and both parties would still be mostly satisfied.

[Kitty-]

I'd do it if I was sure it wouldn't be a psycho, for 3 million? No probs!

[Crazygirl]

I think I'd do it. I could use the money.

[archie21]

I loved reading this... the arguments JLS puts forward are excellent, it is interesting to note the reaction of the other girls.
Emma I am not surprised at her reply, including the no boundaries etc because this is how she likes things to be. Although I wouldn't wonder if she would do it for free even though $3m is a lot to turn down. Be interesting to see if she comments back.

Crazygirl by her own admission would do it because she needs the money but I wonder if she would do it if she didn't need the money?

Money is the driving force for both Hannah and Kitty but I wonder if either of them have thought it through... total isolation except for electronic boxes and voice.

I will come back and see what else may have arrived here, this is an excellent mental question....

[gigglesticker]

If I was allowed to apply, I'd do it. The first few play sessions give a feel for the person. If it is a weirdo, you can probably find out by the time before you go in. If not, then he was really good at hiding it and therefore could've done something similar without the money incentive, or that the applying person is a poor judge of character and would therefore again be abused by various people.

Then the question becomes: "well, what am I doing in there?" and it sounds like basically anything, short of most limits really. Physically, there could be no danger as the well being is being taken care of, however as jls put forward, the psychological effects of such things could have a profound impact on the lives of people.

As an example, mere prostitution leads to an amazing amount of personal baggage, from crippling self confidence to wide range of emotional instabilities ( dated one as well as did some 'escort' work myself).

Since this basically prostitution on steroids, added in with all the kinky and non-kinky things someone would do with a no-limit slave, the psyche of the applicant must be in really good shape to even have a chance of making it out.
It might sound like "kinky sex for 3 months", but if there is really no limits other than dangerous stuff, what is to stop the owner from doing seriously humiliating things? Or downright insulting? The experiment in the university with students acting as guards and prisoners comes to mind, in terms of how easily one in position of power could become sadistic given there is little emotional attachment and how easily one is a powerless origin would give up more power in hopes of appeasing the ones with power.

So yeah, that first week is very important, otherwise it's pretty much no money and a lot of sexual abuse.

[Kitty-]

Originally Posted by archie21

I loved reading this... the arguments JLS puts forward are excellent, it is interesting to note the reaction of the other girls.
Emma I am not surprised at her reply, including the no boundaries etc because this is how she likes things to be. Although I wouldn't wonder if she would do it for free even though $3m is a lot to turn down. Be interesting to see if she comments back.

Crazygirl by her own admission would do it because she needs the money but I wonder if she would do it if she didn't need the money?

Money is the driving force for both Hannah and Kitty but I wonder if either of them have thought it through... total isolation except for electronic boxes and voice.

I will come back and see what else may have arrived here, this is an excellent mental question....

Total isolation is no problem for me for that much money. It's just for three months- not three years!

[Embii]

I swear I already answered this o.o
It depends entirely on Person A. If it was someone I liked, and more importantly, trusted, as in I wouldn't mind spending 3 months talking to them lots and not much to others anyway, then sure. As long as I knew them, knew what they were going to do (and had reason to believe them - a contract or something), knew they were sane, and that I would probably enjoy my time with them (which isn't hard-depending on the person) then sure. Plus, free money.

Then again, if I had enough money to get by, orhad any doubts whatsoever about what he was going to do or if he was bad for me, or would be manipulative in cutting me off from people, then hell no.