RE: female circumcision and slavery

RE: female circumcision and slavery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LadyPact -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 10:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm a bit funky about the other person's name being thrown around the boards, as well. Sadly, it's a bit late to close the door on that one now. Actually, it's not. While it's the smallest of my contentions about this thread, any forum Mod could have removed and/or edited the other party's name from the OP's post. It wouldn't change that person being named in the article link but it would have removed the other party being identified on the forums.

WhoreMods -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 10:35:53 AM)
True. They do seem to have yanked Bertrang's profile now, so maybe they'll get onto that one.

LadyPact -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 10:53:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods True. They do seem to have yanked Bertrang's profile now, so maybe they'll get onto that one. I have to admit, I'm a little fuzzy on that part. I know the OP boasted about his "rights" to be permitted to post on social media. However, that isn't necessarily true across the board. Fetlife's TOU doesn't allow it, at all. quote: Registered sex offenders convicted of sexual violence and/or non-consensual sexual offenses are not permitted to have accounts on FetLife. BitLove does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or any other protected status.

OsideGirl -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 10:59:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I know the OP boasted about his "rights" to be permitted to post on social media. That actually has nothing to do with this site. It has to do with the terms of his sex offender registration. The Law has allowed him to be on social media sites without violating his status. But, since the site was notified of his Sex Offender status, I hope it was the site that removed him, rather than him deleting his profile in a tantrum only to return another day.

WhoreMods -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 11:28:21 AM)
I think he'd be saving his tantrums for hissy fits in a thread where somebody's talked back to him, looking over the last six pages: if he deleted his own account, he wouldn't be able to talk shit at people, and restraint and dignity don't seem to be his thing.

LadyPact -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 11:31:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl That actually has nothing to do with this site. It has to do with the terms of his sex offender registration. The Law has allowed him to be on social media sites without violating his status. But, since the site was notified of his Sex Offender status, I hope it was the site that removed him, rather than him deleting his profile in a tantrum only to return another day. Kind of related to why I asked you the earlier question. I know I'm harsher about this stuff than most people. Nobody is ever going to accuse me of singing the Kumbaya of all inclusive. Somebody above asked where we draw the line? I'm thinking anything to do with prepubescent children might be a place to start.

HoneyBears -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 2:41:47 PM)
- FR - quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I think he'd be saving his tantrums for hissy fits in a thread where somebody's talked back to him, looking over the last six pages: if he deleted his own account, he wouldn't be able to talk shit at people, and restraint and dignity don't seem to be his thing. Actually, forum profile accounts are maintained separately from main profile accounts. They are linked, but separate. What that means is, even if you have closed your account and left the site, your forum posts remain and you can still login on this collarchat side with your same password to continue making posts under your former screen name.

WhoreMods -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 2:50:54 PM)
Got you. So he might have closed his profile account as no slaves are biting at the chance of having their genitals removed and being namedropped all over whichever social media Toddy boy frequents, but that doesn't mean we aren't due another tantrum the next time he passes this way. Thanks for clearing that up,

stef -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/11/2016 3:01:31 PM)
I doubt he closed his account. He's too much of an attention whore to willfully restrict his visibility that way.

WhoreMods -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/12/2016 4:40:39 AM)
Good point. I wonder why his posts are still in here if somebody else has yanked his profile for him, then?

LilJuly76 -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/12/2016 5:13:56 AM)
me thinks I hardly doubt the one chick he found was a slave and I literally wouldn't classify him as a Dominant.

ManOeuvre -> RE: female circumcision and slavery (8/15/2016 10:24:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar I totally agree with you that a sensible, ethical person would have reported anybody seeking to do such a thing to minors... But playing devil's advocate for a second... He's not in a profession where he has a mandatory duty to report, and in CA one is not required legally to report crimes (or potential crimes). As such, when it comes to the sting set up for him, he wasn't actually obligated to report anything. Should he have done so as a decent human being? Fuck yes. Was he legally required to do so? Nope. Which leaves the fact that he was forced into a plea bargain over a crime he did not commit, because the DA knew that in a trial the 'technicality' of him not actually having committed a crime wouldn't matter, because of the shock value of what he did do with Robyn, and because he just has a nasty (as is clear on this thread) personality. I'm personally rather offended that the government would force jail time and sex offender registration when they couldn't actually prove criminal behavior, just because they find something a citizen does distasteful. He didn't bite on the sting. Not even when offered 20 million dollars. Which is all that should matter from a legal point of view, considering that legally he didn't have an obligation to report. We might find it morally reprehensible that he didn't report it, but once we start throwing people in jail just because some people find their -legal- behavior morally reprehensible, we can throw the entire country in jail, because everybody does something which somebody else, somewhere considers morally reprehensible... which is exactly why we have laws to define what is and isn't okay. Ishtar, thank you for a level-headed post. Thanks to you, I feel the richer for having slogged through the rest of this thread.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875