Girl in the box

Girl in the box (Full Version)

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

Message

Royalton -> Girl in the box (1/26/2006 12:29:24 AM)
One of the channels showed "Girl in the box" the other day. Anyone have seen it? http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/sex_slave/index.html

Lordandmaster -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 1:26:02 AM)
Nice informative non-prejudicial quote in there: quote: "It is important to understand," Hazelwood writes, "that the ritualistic and heterosexual sadist inherently believes that all women are evil; consequently, if and when these men set out to prove this hypothesis, they select nice, middle-class women who are apparently normal." They use a process that exploited the woman's vulnerability to turn her into a compliant accomplice. (Edited because Mr. Hazelwood evidently has not mastered the use of the comma.)

Tine11 -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 1:31:06 AM)
that is scary

candystripper -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 2:28:26 AM)
You know, i have a Sadistic friends, and a few more with sadistic interests, and i am tired of hearing (1) they hate women and (2) they are deviant. My friends are good Men who treat women -- generally those with some curiosity about masocism -- as the loving partners they are. They take time and great care to try and assure that the woman has an erotic response to the pain, and escalate very slowly and carefully. Apart from this they are dear to me and are great friends. Now i realise there are abusive men -- here, there, everywhere -- as well as others who view sadism differently. As always, for me, there's a learning curve. But i know from my non-sadistic Dom and Master friends that they are sometimes asked to beat on woman way beyond their comfort level and have sometimes been rejected for refusing to do so. Is sadism wrong? Well, i feel anything consented to by adults is generally not up for public judgment. This Mr. Hazelwood Lam quoted almost sounds jealous..as if he'd be deviant if he could find some -- ahem -- guts. i cannot claim to know the DSM-IV all that well, but since sadism covers so many behaviors and relationships, i rather doubt there's a wholesale condemnation. Even if there is, bear in mind how recently the psychiatric profession considered being gay a mental illness. candystripper

sweetpettjenny -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 2:49:33 AM)
I read it, and yes scary for unconsenting people

krys -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 4:31:19 AM)
Well I think I can understand why a guy doing a study of sadists like Hooker, a guy who kidnapped a girl and spent a few years torturing and brainwashing her and storing her in a box under her waterbed like a blowup doll MIGHT just get a bad impression of sadists. 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.

Chaingang -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 5:17:33 AM)
I read all 15 tedious hyperlinked pages of it. Sheeesh! Without knowing more details, I find room for reasonable doubt. But people have a tendency to convict based on some perceived moral agenda rather than what is strictly right or wrong under the law. The expert testimony on issues like "stockholm syndrome" is controversial to say the least. How about this interesting tidbit from the wiki: "According to the FBI, 92 percent of hostages in the FBI's database were reported to show no signs of Stockholm Syndrome..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome So the overwhelming majority show no signs of such a "syndrome"? I agree that such a finding is not proof against a thing like "stockholm syndrome" but then what kinds of facts go to support that such a relationship exists between a victim and his/her captor? Such a finding seems highly speculative to me, and speculation is not proof of any kind. I kept reading and finding the explanations more outlandish as the story progressed. The lies the victim claimed to have believed seemed pretty wild to me. The omniscient Slave Company? C'mon...! I don't even believe the U.S. Govt. has powers like those of the Slave Company - at least not yet. And technology is only now beginning to make such powers available - albeit at a fairly high price. How about some of that other "evidence"? The love letters? The family visit? The phone calls? How about Janice? Janice the god-fearing woman that carried on an extra-marital affair? Did I read that correctly - Janice and Carol went drinking and picking up men together? Jealous Janice? The Bible plays an interesting role in this text - as the book whose moral code requires monogamy. Did these people read the same Old Testament I did? There's plenty in the Old Testament to suggest that God is perfectly okay with polygamous arrangements. A lot of the same stuff could be explained as a menage that went sour, with the two women exacting revenge on their former Dom. There was apparently no hard evidence for any of the more extreme stuff. End of story. ... I want to be as clear as possible as to what I am saying. The story as told could totally be true and the man rightfully convicted. But the story as told leaves all kinds of questions unanswered and I find the gaps of logic in it large enough to drive a truck through. The article exists purely for its entertainment value, it's ability to shock and titillate an eagerly consuming public. I don't find much difference between that article and the average pictorial on a site like Hogtied - except that the former is claimed to be of interest to the general public and delivered as such to keep the public informed of news and current events. I guess the fact that half the story almost qualifies as stroke material is immaterial to that lofty claimed agenda.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 9:55:39 AM)
Then maybe he should broaden his field of inquiry before spouting opinions. But that's less likely to get you quoted on the 5-o'clock news. quote: ORIGINAL: krys Well I think I can understand why a guy doing a study of sadists like Hooker, a guy who kidnapped a girl and spent a few years torturing and brainwashing her and storing her in a box under her waterbed like a blowup doll MIGHT just get a bad impression of sadists.

krys -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 4:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Then maybe he should broaden his field of inquiry before spouting opinions. But that's less likely to get you quoted on the 5-o'clock news. From that same site: "Former FBI agent Roy Hazelwood was among the original profilers in the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI. His specialty for over two decades was sexual crimes. " Doesn't sound like an agenda, sounds like this guy has a specific job. I think they only call guys like this in for the serial killer type, not the slap and tickle pain players. He also says in an interview on that site: "I know of no successful treatment programs for adult criminal sexual sadists. It is important that all four terms, adult criminal sexual sadists, be used." Maybe if he had followed his own advice, his statement would have been more clear.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 4:19:06 PM)
Good point. quote: ORIGINAL: krys He also says in an interview on that site: "I know of no successful treatment programs for adult criminal sexual sadists. It is important that all four terms, adult criminal sexual sadists, be used." Maybe if he had followed his own advice, his statement would have been more clear.

mnottertail -> RE: Girl in the box (1/26/2006 4:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Nice informative non-prejudicial quote in there: quote: "It is important to understand," Hazelwood writes, "that the ritualistic and heterosexual sadist inherently believes that all women are evil; consequently, if and when these men set out to prove this hypothesis, they select nice, middle-class women who are apparently normal." They use a process that exploited the woman's vulnerability to turn her into a compliant accomplice. (Edited because Mr. Hazelwood evidently has not mastered the use of the comma.) So, Lam, you got the godamn gall to tell me that women aren't evil? Of course they are; deep down; and that's why we find them "cute". Within tolerance of course, it ain't like pussy was invented, for fucks sake. philosophically, Ron

Royalton -> Chaingang (1/27/2006 11:31:48 PM)
Chaingang, I feel the same as you. There are things that don't fit. She was interviewed for the program (I don't know when it was recorded) and she seemed pretty calm about what happened. Even her sister said that she adapted fairly rapidly to her "freedom." She didn't mentioned any physical harm except for the caging. After the first year she had numerous opportunities to escape. They showed pictures from her family visit (she spend the night alone with them while her "captor" was doing some errands) and she looked pretty happy, always smiling. During all this time she could have dissapeared with the help of her family. When she left for good, she stayed at a motel (I guess) for a week, and it was the wife the one who notified the police, not herself. Regarding the kidnapping, I believe that she was more coerced than kidnapped. Regarding the contract, I believe that it was a way for her of avoiding to assume responsibilities in choosing. (if they threaten you, you stay without guilt). Even her turn towards religion during the last part of her captivity could be due to an inner conflict (she likes the situation but she is ashamed that she likes it, so a higher moral power might re-direct her to a "righful" path.) I might be wrong also, but it sounds like revenge for me too. Couple that with morality, they guy got more than 100 years in prison.

Royalton -> here is more (1/27/2006 11:46:09 PM)
here is more about Cameron Hooker: http://209.150.104.196/horror/bedlambound/library/hooker1.html

veronicaofML -> RE: Girl in the box (1/28/2006 4:51:25 PM)
i got as far as 3rd page, and it turned my stomach.

BitaTruble -> RE: Girl in the box (1/28/2006 5:20:18 PM)
quote: I want to be as clear as possible as to what I am saying. The story as told could totally be true and the man rightfully convicted. But the story as told leaves all kinds of questions unanswered and I find the gaps of logic in it large enough to drive a truck through. The article exists purely for its entertainment value, it's ability to shock and titillate an eagerly consuming public. I don't find much difference between that article and the average pictorial on a site like Hogtied - except that the former is claimed to be of interest to the general public and delivered as such to keep the public informed of news and current events. I guess the fact that half the story almost qualifies as stroke material is immaterial to that lofty claimed agenda. I didn't watch the show and I didn't read hyperlink, but I did read the actual book. I thought it was very compelling and the conviction just and sound. Celeste

MistressAlexaS -> RE: Girl in the box (1/31/2006 5:08:16 AM)
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. What I found interesting was while he was being interrogated he shouted "But it was all consensual, just ask Elayna." Of course she would say it was consenusal he had her totally BRAINWASHED for crying out loud she was to terrified/programmed to say anything else. Brainwashing is powerful and scarey shit and whats even scarier are the amount of sites on the net teaching people how to do it as part of "slave training". Be careful.... ~Alexa

windy135 -> RE: Girl in the box (1/31/2006 3:26:36 PM)
It makes me realize how much we don't know about the human psych and the brain itself. There must be something going on with people who can do that... scarey but interesting story

Raphael -> RE: Girl in the box (2/2/2006 8:00:45 PM)
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.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Girl in the box (2/2/2006 9:02:16 PM)
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.

JAROD -> RE: Girl in the box (2/2/2006 11:18:18 PM)
I am new to this site (havent finished profile yet), but not new to this kind of behavior. The criminal in this case is not a mentally healthy individual. I'm not a psychologist, but I have seen this kind of behavior in others; to limited degrees. He is compulsive in his behavior and is no diffrent than a serial killer or rapist. Jack the Ripper might understand him; but I don't. The DSM IV-TR list this person as a sexual sadist . Most people in the lifestyle would not qualify for this diagnosis, but for a diagnosis of sadomasochism: a practice that is not considered rare or unusual in the U.S. and ussually occurs outside the realm of a mental disorder. Sorry were not quite the perverts we would all like to be. As far as this case goes that girl was the victim of a crime, and she should be treated as such; with all the kindness and well wishes we can muster. Mr. Hazelwood may not like our lifestyle choices, but as long as what we are doing is safe, consesual,and legal he won't bother us and before anyone starts dispargeing the man to hard he worked on a study several years ago that changed how the police view rape. This man helped turn rape into a real crime and not a case of he said she said, or in the views of some police departments the womans fault.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125