Forces of Consent

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Forces of Consent

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Forces of Consent

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Forces of Consent - 7/23/2007 6:09:47 PM

unsung

Posts: 183
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline

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

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 4:47:46 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Try this link

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/law_culture/LHworkshop2003/Schmeiser_Long.doc

(in reply to unsung)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 5:51:15 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 12:22:36 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 12:38:03 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 3:52:46 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 3:56:19 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 4:47:35 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

I thought for sure that you would like the Dog Brothers link

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 4:57:21 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

I thought for sure that you would like the Dog Brothers link

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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Forces of Consent - 7/24/2007 9:54:11 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 10