Forces of Consent

Forces of Consent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

unsung -> Forces of Consent (7/23/2007 6:09:47 PM)
Might be an old read, however someone might gain so use /information from it: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:XFujdnWWmMkJ:lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1066%26context%3Duconn/ucwps+DOMINATION+AND+SUBMISSION+RESOURCES&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=589

Alumbrado -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 4:47:46 AM)
Try this link http://www2.law.columbia.edu/law_culture/LHworkshop2003/Schmeiser_Long.doc

Alumbrado -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 5:51:15 AM)
No replies? Why am I not surprised. Could it be that her work explicity refutes all of the 'consent is never a defense to battery' BS that has been spouted every time this topic comes up? Could it be that she actually cites Lawrence, which is head in the sand taboo here at CM? Could it be that she instead focuses on the actual problem, which is why the courts are making an exception to consent and bedroom privacy in some cases involving WIITWD?

Sinergy -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 12:22:36 PM)
Could be because a 60 page legal document (the first one) is a fairly heavy slog for a layperson. Sinergy p.s. On to read Alumbrado's link.

Sinergy -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 12:38:03 PM)
Looked at from a certain perspective, I suppose you are correct Alumbrado. But both links talked greatly about psychic or personality force (non-physical coercion) between two individuals in the interest of sexual gratification, as ruling out one individual's abiltity to freely consent. Is this what you were referring to with your head in the sand comment? I imagine the primary difficulty the court has in establishing a legal standard is where does one draw the line between the sex act (described by some 2nd wave Feminist writers as being intrinsically violent towards women) and that guy who advertised for somebody to kill him and eat him in Germany. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 3:52:46 PM)
Ahh yes, the Dworkinist 'reading Playboy is rape' extreme. In several threads on CM I've gotten involved in arguing against the perception that what we do is illegal by statute, which it seems to boil down to the belief that 'kinky sex is illegal', or 'hitting people is illegal', neither of which are strictly speaking, true. Lawrence refutes the first, and http://www.dogbrothers.com/ refutes the second. Attempts to focus on the exceptions, and find out why some people went to jail, and others didn't, would be an important bit of discourse here, I would think, but the reception has been underwhelming to date. Why wouldn't as many people as possible want to know exactly where we stand legally, and what our rights are if accused? Is there a romantic appeal to being outside of the law?

Sinergy -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 3:56:19 PM)
I imagine a lot of discussion of this nature would tend to be uncomfortable for people with the "Nothing bad ever happens to me" point of view. From my own perspective, my understanding of the legalities of WIITWD behind it is fairly limited. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 4:47:35 PM)
I thought for sure that you would like the Dog Brothers link[8D]

Sinergy -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 4:57:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I thought for sure that you would like the Dog Brothers link[8D] It was interesting, Alumbrado. The stuff we do has two targets, groin and head. Dog Brothers dont allow those, I tend to doubt they would like me there. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: Forces of Consent (7/24/2007 9:54:11 PM)
They certainly used to allow head and groin shots. I haven't dealt with them for a while though, so maybe they have added new rules. This used to be the standard: http://dogbrothers.com/adobedocs/fighterform.pdf

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125