>>11356174
Assuming a society with similar social values to ours, a specific gender based justification for slavery would change things, I think a slave would still be considered legally a human for contracts she entered into before being enslaved. So if she specifies who the proceeds of her sale go to, that is honoured since her last act as a human was to turn herself into a commodity.

Choosing who and why would probably have a few common themes. Family for sure, but also a closely valued friend might be common. I can especially see a voluntary slave wanting to give back to the people she will be letting down by not wanting to be a person, but there's also the question of soon to be former people that just show up at the slave market and refuse to leave. No identification, completely nude and screaming whenever they're dragged away from the market. Such perverts would probably have 100% of their sale go to the market itself.

I could also see some limits to such a legal system. Like this is mostly a thing for a one time sale, if you're being sold to the mines its generally rare that your best friend is also getting their share of monthly profits from you. A voluntary slave could also probably still put limits on where she ends up, not anywhere close to a consensual BDSM contract, but even something as simple "I want to be owned by this gender and serve as a house slave" would probably still be mostly honoured by this system. Even if I really doubt there's meaningful enforcement of what is done with her a few years later. At that point you've fully given up humanity and thus human rights.