LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
Overall, wow, just wow. That is my most primary reaction to your post. There is no way to say this without coming off as insulting, but really, working as a cashier doesn't give you all that much insight into the human psyche. Sorry, but your two minute contact with individuals as a cashier simply doesn't do it. Let me say first, that my opinion is based on the information in the article, nothing more, nothing less. Also, my professional life was working within the social work/legal field, along with the fact that I have much more experience working with and observing human behavior for long than two minute intervals, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, I'm far more qualified to make observations on this than you are. Scientifically and statistically, it is not often that people are accused of things many times of the same exact thing and having it be false. That isn't saying it doesn't happen, just that it isn't often. From a legal standpoint, it is also not common for someone to say that a person with a record for assualt is suddenly going to be accused of theft. Quite the opposite really. Someone with a history of assault is not going to be accused of theft because that isn't "their" typical crime. However, someone with a history of assault could logically be looked at for murder, and a convicted burglar could be suspected for armed robbery. See the connection? You do understand that "no" and "stop" mean "no" and "stop," right? Responding "why are you doing this to me" with "tough shit" is indicative, both legally and SSC/RACK wise that the d-type needs to evaluate whether the s-type might be retracting their consent. I'm sure you also know that regardless of contracts signed, if someone realizes that what was discussed turns out NOT to be what they thought it would and decides they know longer want to participate, either party has the right to back out. Based on the article, she WAS backing out, and he was ignoring it. From a legal standpoint in the US, as well as from a BDSM standpoint is where there was no longer consent, and he was therefore assaulting her. Note in the article, that the accused was not simply "charged" with assaulting three other women on separate occasions, he was CONVICTED. In other words, the courts found, beyond a reasonable doubt that in those past instances he was guilty of assaulting those women. We do agree, she was a moron. However, she had been with this guy for a while, and he perhaps did not show his true colors to her. In either case, their agreement was poorly negotiated and left gaping holes as to what each expected to happen in this particular situation. Why should the courts have to protect such morons? Because that is what the legal system is for. Just like the court will prosecute someone who allegedly is unaware of a law because ignorance is no defense, those same morons get protection under the law. That is just how it works. As to your comment regarding going out and educating people...you have no idea what I do or don't do to "educate" people about anything, so really the comment, to me, is nothing more than something coming from some young kid who spouts off without thought. There is no "our" job to educate people. There are individual decisions to speak about things that matter to us. This matters to you, go to the park, jump on your soapbox and start talking. As for me, I have dedicated my life to those types of things and to be honest, I think it is time to retire and leave the "education" about how life should work to such knowledgeable youngsters as yourself.
|