RE: Girl in the box

RE: Girl in the box (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

MistressAlexaS -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 4:57:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael quote: CSI had a similar case on TV the other night which was just as shocking and disgusting. I just wanted to reach thru the TV and choke the life outta the brainwashing "Dom" character. Then the makers of that show succeeded in manipulating your emotions. That seems to be the goal of nearly everything on TV these days - it's all about manipulating the viewer, creating images that provoke an emotional reaction. No what they suceeded in doing was showing a mentally deranged control freak turn a beautiful young woman into a mindless quivering meathole. What he was doing was NOT consensual in anyway. I'm not saying all Dom's are like that, far from it most are not. I have many male Dom friends who are great guys. If you saw the show and thought he was an alright guy then I feel for your slaves/sub. ~Alexa

justheather -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 5:29:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I agree, and it's one of the reasons why I don't watch much TV, but there's a good reason why they take that approach. They've determined that it makes money. So who is really to blame? The viewing public. People get what they want. quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael That seems to be the goal of nearly everything on TV these days - it's all about manipulating the viewer, creating images that provoke an emotional reaction. I see I dont have to bother typing this response as it has already been done for me. Thanks so much.

Chaingang -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 7:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAROD ...but as long as what we are doing is safe, consesual, and legal... Gee, I wonder what the laws are in your state of Arkansas. I seriously doubt that any level of more serious or extreme BDSM behavior is protected in your own or any other state. What has to be understood is that it's very easy for this kind of thing to turn into a he said/she said scenario. Again, I don't know the details of this case beyond the linked articles, but others were persuaded the guy was a criminal. At the same time the facts as laid out were very much in the way of he said/she said except that it was two to one. I saw plenty of signals that these two women were free to leave any time. They went out drinking and carousing without him for christ's sake! One carried on an affair. He forced them to do these things...? Seems like plenty of freedom to me. Who is to say what is "safe"? Branding, scarification, play rape gang bangs, etc? Who is to say what is "consensual"? Punishments of various types, etc? You missed "sane" - just as well... As judged by a jury of your peers - or mere strangers as has become customary - you'd be surprised how you might be viewed by those average bozos off the streets. I doubt that a jury will be persuaded by your explanations about RACK (risk-aware consensual kink) if they feel like hanging you out to twist in the wind. Good luck with that one.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 11:09:52 AM)
Nice stocking in your avatar, btw.

justheather -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 11:29:30 AM)
Why thank you. I have another one just like it :-).

candystripper -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 3:30:20 PM)
quote: What I dont understand is how someone can read a single quote, out of context, and make not only critiques but jump to the ridiculous conclusion that "This Mr. Hazelwood Lam quoted almost sounds jealous..as if he'd be deviant if he could find some -- ahem -- guts." Gee, I kinda hope more men don't develop the "guts" to kidnap women off the street and keep them in a box under their bed, alienate them from their friends, eventually cause enough physical damage that their hair starts falling out. Perhaps reading the article BEFORE forming an opinion on the subject would be helpful next time. _____________________________ kry{Rk} ~stands corrected~ i relied on /misread Lam, and should have done my own reading. candystripper

maybemaybenot -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 4:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang [ At the same time the facts as laid out were very much in the way of he said/she said except that it was two to one. I saw plenty of signals that these two women were free to leave any time. They went out drinking and carousing without him for christ's sake! One carried on an affair. He forced them to do these things...? Seems like plenty of freedom to me. Chaingang: I was a prosecution witness in a federal involuntary servitude <slavery > case about ten years ago. Interestingly enough, one of the defense arguements was very similar to what you have said. No locks on the doors, not tied up or restrained, went on outings with one of her captors etc. The problem with that defense is the legal definition of involuntary servitude or slavery. Which is as follows : INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE - a condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him. < from lectlaw.com > If you apply your terms to what constitutes slavery/involuntary servitude, the Plantation slaves were not slaves either. There were no locks on the cabin, they often traveled with their masters, and even carried on sexual relationships with them. What kept them true slaves, is the fear, the force, the intimadation. I have been involved with an anti slavery group for about ten years and each and every defense case has tried to incorporate that same theory into their defense, so far it has not been " bought " by the jury. Each prosecutor has used a variation of the plantation slaves to rebutt. mbmbn

Chaingang -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 5:52:38 PM)
Well, it just goes to show how gullible people are. When slavery was literally institutionalized and perfectly legal I can see that slaves may have had real fears in attempting escape. In the case at hand, I just find the alleged victims fairly pathetic. The lies both women were supposedly willing to believe leave me wondering about their overall intelligence - and again, that actually presumes that the lies were actually made as presented. Don't the "force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion" have to be real? This "Slave Company" stuff just makes me want to tell the victim, "Gee - I'm sorry you're an idiot." Any jury that buys that argument likewise has my sympathies. That's why a jury of one's peers is so important. You simply cannot have a jury of people that knowingly disagree with your lifestyle cut you a fair break - it just won't happen, or very rarely if ever. ... Digression: Most defense attys provided by the state just feed their clients to the wolves. They are not in any way prepared to go to the mat for their clients - not with time, money, or adequate anything. You generally have to have serious money to put up a good defense. Consequently, most prosecutions are just procedurally correct rubber stamp jobs. All the necessary pomp and circumstance to maintain the conviction and no more. The judge is just a sacrificial priest - that's why he wears robes as if he had taken religious orders.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 6:13:50 PM)
Well.. in the case I was involved in the enslavers were very wealthy Kuwaiti Nationalists and had two of the best defense lawyers in Boston. I won't go into it, but I assure, in this particular case it was true enslavement. I was doing private duty homecare for their ill child and was eye witness to conversations and acts. As for the threats, force, intimidation being real.. no, not neccesarily so. Example: In the case I was involved in the enslavers told the slave, upon her arrival in the US, that foriegner women were " shot on sight " if not accompanied by a man. Her experience allowed her to believe that having lived in Saudi and Kuwait where women must be accompanied by a man. Even tho in those countries they are not " shot on sight ". Admittedly a different type of case from this one. In my prev. post, I was just pointing out the legal interpretation and standard. mbmbn

Raphael -> RE: Girl in the box (2/3/2006 6:58:28 PM)
quote: No what they suceeded in doing was showing a mentally deranged control freak turn a beautiful young woman into a mindless quivering meathole. What he was doing was NOT consensual in anyway. What you seem to miss is that it was, in fact, all consensual, and staged. 'He' was a well-paid actor, and so was she. The entire thing was a fantasy, designed to manipulate the viewer just like pavlovs dog.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125