quote:

prop normally has two flavors of detractors: 1) the type that have read previous honest admissions of some extreme instances of her past and decided they know better than she what is best for her and deal with any similar topics in such an armchair psychology sort of way (to the plain disregard for that whole consent thing)

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

what?? protests! [8|]

porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Incidentally, that makes 375 points, by my count. When can I start redeeming them for valuable prizes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
There is a clear legal standard here, namely, "danger to oneself or others" - it may mean little to you lying alone in your bed at night with a jar of Vaseline in your D&D fantasy world, but it means a great deal to people fighting in court at this moment because they sell floggers or to the women I've talked to who've been put in the hospital with broken bones, ruptured spleens, bruised livers, punctured lungs and broken jaws because some "dom" thinks BDSM is a license to take out all of his suppressed hatred of his mother on some woman looking for a little kinky release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

prop normally has two flavors of detractors: 1) the type that have read previous honest admissions of some extreme instances of her past and decided they know better than she what is best for her and deal with any similar topics in such an armchair psychology sort of way (to the plain disregard for that whole consent thing)

Considering she's been declared legally mentally incompetent, I'd say it's a fair bet most of us would know better than she what's best for her. She's a young adult who, from what I can tell from her past posts, suffers no more mental affliction than severe depression (in other words, no retardation, no alzheimers, none of the usual causes of legal incompetence) and yet a court actually found her to be unable to make decisions that affect her own life. In other words, I'm not disregarding "that whole consent thing" - legally SHE IS UNABLE TO CONSENT. This relationship is no more consentual than a statuatory rape case.

quote:

So how can anyone take her at face value when she says "I love the man who's done xyz to me and he makes my life better than it was before," especially since I've seen her say that exact thing (he makes my life better than what it was) without any specific details. I'm sorry but that's what cult members say.

quote:

How much fuller and better their life is now...no details. And we all imagine that she was doing such horrible things, prostituting herself or doing drugs or living on the street, but maybe she was just really really depressed and she's been conditioned to think she's less depressed now.

quote:

We're talking about a court appointed guardian abusing (in the legal sense) his legal ward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Didn't I already give you points earlier?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Some of you guys need to do some serious reading on the subject - you truly are defending something that is indefensible. Again, the search function is your friend. Perhaps when you're equipped with a modicum of background knowledge, you'll see what the rest of us are seeing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Read, my friend. Absorb that background info. Knowledge is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
There is a clear legal standard here, namely, "danger to oneself or others" - it may mean little to you lying alone in your bed at night with a jar of Vaseline in your D&D fantasy world, but it means a great deal to people fighting in court at this moment because they sell floggers or to the women I've talked to who've been put in the hospital with broken bones, ruptured spleens, bruised livers, punctured lungs and broken jaws because some "dom" thinks BDSM is a license to take out all of his suppressed hatred of his mother on some woman looking for a little kinky release.

You know, there's a funny thing about "danger".

A girl can go to a plastic surgeon to deliberately have her nose broken. She can go to a gym or a dojo as young as age four to learn to do things with her body that are likely to cause damage. We 'ooh' and 'aah' when people get into a ring and try to beat themselves into bloody pulps, and yet we freak out when someone's peenar peeks out in the process.

I would find it all a hilarious spectacle were I not constantly dragged into the midst of it.

Here's some terrifying facts:

Sometimes "no" means "yes".

Sometimes a 13 year old takes her OWN nude pictures.

Sometimes we arrest, imprison, and execute the wrong person, and everyone up the chain KNOWS IT.

Sometimes accidents happen, and in the process to exonerate ourselves, we blame others for things they maybe didn't really do.

Sometimes, upon reflection, "yes" can retroactively turn into "no" - months down the line.




Sometimes people are legitimately vicious, dangerous brutes, who exist only to cause harm.

And sometimes we just desperately want to see them that way.


Can you tell the difference? Are you sure?



"Right" and "wrong" are things that people have been arguing about for at LEAST 12 thousand years of recorded history, and we have yet to come to any kind of consensus.

Some people do things that other people deem scary, or even harmful. If you feel moved to act, then act. If someone else doesn't feel moved to act, they won't. Neither choice gives anyone a monopoly on moral certitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
SSC is not just a cutesy cop out, it's the basis of caselaw that makes the almost all of WIIWD even marginally legal, and your only argument if you happen to charged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
It might make a difference to all the mentally incapacitated women who are so frail in their self-awareness that you must prance onto the battlefield of improper consent and stomp out the evildoers!

But, you see...precedent is important. One misguided fellow like you being permitted to wield your morals like a universal scythe reaping 'acceptable consensual action' is the fertile soil from which censorship, oppression and bigotry are born. I'd much rather not set that precedent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
First they came for the Masters that broke bones, pierced lungs, and exposed their slaves to rape at the hands of strangers. But I said nothing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

I might even have my very strong opinions on the matter personally, but someone somewhere and probably not very far down the line would have some MASSIVE issues with some of my "kinks" once again for lack of a better term. I won't even discuss them here because 1) I simply can't (TOS) 2) I am not willing to deal with the level of scrutiny prop is currently enduring in relative silence and 3) We are very private anyway and keep most of the internal workings and specifics of our relationship to ourselves. I am not enough of a hypocrite to judge one person's kinks and then turn around and want people to respect mine.

quote:

Consent (Criminal)

A defence against criminal liability may arise when a defendant can argue that, because of consent, there was no crime (e.g., arguing that permission was given to use an automobile, so it was not theft or TWOC). But public policy requires courts to lay down limits on the extent to which citizens are allowed to consent or are to be bound by apparent consent given. Everyday instance of theft: the bike which fits on this wheel has disappeared. ... TWOC is an acronym standing for Taken Without Owners Consent. ... Public policy or ordre public is the body of fundamental principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. ... A trial at the Old Bailey in London as drawn by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin for Ackermanns Microcosm of London (1808-11). ... The word citizen may refer to: A person with a citizenship Citizen Watch Co. ...

• As an application of parens patriae, for example, minors cannot consent to having sexual intercourse under a specified age even though the particular instance of statutory rape might be a "victimless" offense. In the case of adults, there are similar limits imposed on their capacity where the state deems the issue to be of sufficient significance. Thus, for example, an individual domiciled in a common law state cannot give consent and create a valid second marriage. The second ceremony will do no more than expose the prospective spouse to a charge of bigamy. Similarly, no consent can be given for an incestuous relationship nor for relationships that expose one of the parties to excessive violence (e.g. most states have a rule that an abusive husband can be prosecuted even if the wife does not co-operate and give evidence to rebut the husband's defense that the wife consented). In English law, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 removes the element of consent from the actus reus of many offences, so that only the act itself and the age or other constraints need to be proved, including:

children under 16 years generally, and under 18 years if having sexual relations with persons in a position of trust or with family members over 18 years; andpersons with a mental disorder that impedes choice who are induced, threatened or deceived, or who have sexual relations with care workers.

• While it may be argued by strict libertarians that a state has no general duty to protect the foolish from the effects of mistakes they have made, there is an underlying policy need to limit the ability of the strong to prey on the weak. Hence, most states have laws which criminalize misrepresentations, deceptions and fraud. These are situations in which a victim may have given apparent consent to parting with ownership or possession of money and/or goods or generally suffering a loss, but this consent is treated as vitiated by the dishonesty of the person making the untrue representations. Thus, while the criminal law is not generally a means of escaping civil obligations, the criminal courts may be able to offer some assistance to the gullible by returning their property or making compensation orders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

Like I said if you can't draw the line, somebody will draw it for you - good luck with that anarchy thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

I might even have my very strong opinions on the matter personally, but someone somewhere and probably not very far down the line would have some MASSIVE issues with some of my "kinks" once again for lack of a better term. I won't even discuss them here because 1) I simply can't (TOS) 2) I am not willing to deal with the level of scrutiny prop is currently enduring in relative silence and 3) We are very private anyway and keep most of the internal workings and specifics of our relationship to ourselves. I am not enough of a hypocrite to judge one person's kinks and then turn around and want people to respect mine.

first of all i believe your response was very well written. thank you for sharing. secondly, i bet we have some of the same fetishes! tos and such. [;)]

i'm not looking for acceptance or respect. i think there will always be someone who doesn't agree with something you say or do. i like what i like. i don't apologize. i hope He likes it. that's all that matters. the rest is really not important.

porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

Thanks porcelaine! LOL.... It might be interesting to compare notes sometime.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't much care what people think of me. I also don't really care for confrontation all that much either. Some things I am perfectly willing to remain as part of the great pet mystique. LOL