Sex Slave or Consenting Adult?

[strollingbones]

They claim she was "mentally deficient". I would suggest that anyone who practices BDSM is "mentally deficient", wouldn't you?

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

even a pain slut has rights...to be a dom is to also protect the submissive....and most dom's have contracts with the submissive...that outline behaviors allowed

c&b t is a very sado/mas thing but goes on all the time..safe words are used....etc.

 

[strollingbones]

i totally disagree with missouri however....but there are many levels of play...as long as it is between two consenting adults..it is their business....

if a dom breaks a subs bones...said dom should be getting sub to the doctor.....remember the case in boston where the sub had a heart attack..during a session...the dom went into cover up mode....and hide the body..that is a big no no...

one of the first cyber hook up cases was in nc...a lady agreed to be murdered....he agreed to kill her and did....the state was terrified to bring the case to court and plead it out..the states fear....a jury could not understand the cyber relationship that lead up to the murder.

in reality very few s/m relationships are 24/7... most are simply people going about their lives...working, raising kids etc just not vanilla

 

[Madeline]

They claim she was "mentally deficient". I would suggest that anyone who practices BDSM is "mentally deficient", wouldn't you?

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

It's interesting that you say this, Missourian. You prolly know the American Psychiatric Association is currently revising the Diagnostic and Statisical Manual, the DSM-IV, which is the bible for diagnosising mental illness. At present, consensual sado-maschist practices are listed as mental illnesses (or symptoms thereof) known as discriminatory paraphilias. This definition also includes cross-dressing and other conduct having nothing whatever to do with sado-masochism.

There is much heated debate as to whether, in fact, sexual conduct of this type is actually maladaptive or merely quirky. At present, the DSM-IV reads...

The DSM-IV-TR definition of a mental disorder is that it is "…a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom… Neither deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders…" (p. xxxi)

The disagreement centers mainly on "behavior that causes distress" when that distress arises from social disapproval. We all know, what might be well-tolerated in NYC or San Fransisco is different from what might be tolerated in Peoria, but the same individual with the same behavior does not become mentally ill merely by relocating from the coast to the heartland.

As I pointed out above, there is also disagreement about where to draw the line legally. If we are married and enjoy "rough sex", in most states we are (technically) violating laws against assault and battery. Selective enforcement of these laws against people who enjoy the very same behaviors whilst dressed as clowns or unicorns is legally unsupportable...but it does happen.

Blanket condemnation of people who find sex in the dark, in the missionary position, a tad too boring is not helpful to clarifying what we as a society should permit and what we should medicalize or criminalize. Human sexuality for most is a banquet, not a liquid diet of bland fluids.

Here's a position paper from the National Coalition For Sexual Freedom on the DSM-IV you may find interesting....

https://www.ncsfreedom.org/resources/document-library/activist-resources/489.html

 

[chanel]

I don't need the DSM IV to tell me that people who enjoy electrical shocks and. vices on their scrotums are fucking nutjobs.

Lots of decent people enjoy cutting themselves with razor blades too. May be legal' but it is sick.

 

[Madeline]

I don't need the DSM IV to tell me that people who enjoy electrical shocks and. vices on their scrotums are fucking nutjobs.

Lots of decent people enjoy cutting themselves with razor blades too. May be legal' but it is sick.

Electricity play covers a wide range, chanel. Just like anything else, it can be mild or severe. If you like sitting on the washing machine during the spin cycle, you'd prolly like mild electrical play.

Dun be so quick to color everyone else "sick".

 

[Missourian]

They claim she was "mentally deficient". I would suggest that anyone who practices BDSM is "mentally deficient", wouldn't you?

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

Blanket condemnation of people who find sex in the dark, in the missionary position, a tad too boring is not helpful to clarifying what we as a society should permit and what we should medicalize or criminalize. Human sexuality for most is a banquet, not a liquid diet of bland fluids.

How did you distill this from what I posted?



That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.


Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[blu]

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

Blanket condemnation of people who find sex in the dark, in the missionary position, a tad too boring is not helpful to clarifying what we as a society should permit and what we should medicalize or criminalize. Human sexuality for most is a banquet, not a liquid diet of bland fluids.

How did you distill this from what I posted?



That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.


Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.

most of that isn't sexual. its seriously just a control thing. many "master"/"slave" relationships involve no sexual contact at all

 

[chanel]

If crimes were committed against a minor, they may have a case. But over the age of 18, five years ago, she was free to leave. Abuse? Probably. Slavery? Doubtful.

 

[Madeline]

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

Blanket condemnation of people who find sex in the dark, in the missionary position, a tad too boring is not helpful to clarifying what we as a society should permit and what we should medicalize or criminalize. Human sexuality for most is a banquet, not a liquid diet of bland fluids.

How did you distill this from what I posted?

That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.

Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.

All sexual behavior is inherently ridiculous, Missourian, even the missionary position. The fact that YOU would not find the doggie-play sexually enjoyable cannot be the test used to determine whether such conduct should be illegal or considered medically abberant enough to call a "symptom of mental illness".

I suggest the test we should use, instead, is does the conduct in any way create an undue risk of physical harm? The answer is clearly "no", and so in my view, anyone who wants to play dress up after shopping at Pets R Us is perfectly free to enjoy.

 

[Missourian]

i totally disagree with missouri however....but there are many levels of play...as long as it is between two consenting adults..it is their business....

if a dom breaks a subs bones...said dom should be getting sub to the doctor.....remember the case in boston where the sub had a heart attack..during a session...the dom went into cover up mode....and hide the body..that is a big no no...

one of the first cyber hook up cases was in nc...a lady agreed to be murdered....he agreed to kill her and did....the state was terrified to bring the case to court and plead it out..the states fear....a jury could not understand the cyber relationship that lead up to the murder.

in reality very few s/m relationships are 24/7... most are simply people going about their lives...working, raising kids etc just not vanilla

I'm not ignoring you Bones...I don't disagree that if they are consenting adults they have a right to do as they please.

But I'm also saying that if your sexual urges require assaulting and humiliating your sex partner, you've got a serious problem and should seek professional help. And conversely, if you need to be beaten and humiliated sexually to achieve satisfaction, there is likely an underlying issue compelling that behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The allegations in the indictment were shocking: A young woman had been held captive for years as the sex slave of a Missouri couple. She had been locked in a cage and subjected to electrical shocks. Parts of her body had been nailed to wooden planks.

When announcing charges last month, U.S. Attorney Beth Phillips called the case one of "the most horrific ever prosecuted in this district."

Authorities said the woman was a mentally deficient runaway who was recruited by an older man at the age of 16 to live in his trailer. The situation came to light in early 2009, after the woman, then 23, landed in a hospital following what prosecutors said was a torture session.

But as more details have emerged, more questions have arisen about the accuser, including her involvement in violent sex practices, her posing for a pornographic magazine and her work as a strip-club dancer. Supporters of the defendant are speaking out, too, saying many of the acts described in the indictment are practiced every day between consenting adults.

Susan Dill, Bagley's Kansas City-based attorney, told reporters recently that the indictment tells only one side of the story. She said the defense will present evidence that the woman practiced BDSM -- bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism -- by choice.

Questions About Accuser Surround Sex Slave Case - FoxNews.com

Comments?

Since she's described as "mentally deficient", I'd imagine a lot of the argument is going to be around the question of whether she's too deficient to consent at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They claim she was "mentally deficient". I would suggest that anyone who practices BDSM is "mentally deficient", wouldn't you?

No, not at all. Increasing numbers of psychiatrists say that BDSM, practiced safely, sanely, and consensually, can provide a very healthy and positive outlet.

 

[Missourian]

Blanket condemnation of people who find sex in the dark, in the missionary position, a tad too boring is not helpful to clarifying what we as a society should permit and what we should medicalize or criminalize. Human sexuality for most is a banquet, not a liquid diet of bland fluids.

How did you distill this from what I posted?

That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.

Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.

All sexual behavior is inherently ridiculous, Missourian, even the missionary position. The fact that YOU would not find the doggie-play sexually enjoyable cannot be the test used to determine whether such conduct should be illegal or considered medically abberant enough to call a "symptom of mental illness".

I suggest the test we should use, instead, is does the conduct in any way create an undue risk of physical harm? The answer is clearly "no", and so in my view, anyone who wants to play dress up after shopping at Pets R Us is perfectly free to enjoy.

Caning and being nailed to a board fails the undue risk test.

 

[JBeukema]

If crimes were committed against a minor, they may have a case. But over the age of 18, five years ago, she was free to leave. Abuse? Probably. Slavery? Doubtful.

Do I need physical chains to hold you captive?

Many battered women would say 'no'

 

[Cecilie1200]

They claim she was "mentally deficient". I would suggest that anyone who practices BDSM is "mentally deficient", wouldn't you?

Perhaps not "mentally deficient" but definitely in need of counseling.

If it takes total dominance over another human being, causing them pain and humiliation to get your rocks off...you've got problems.

And the bottoms willingness to submit to humiliating torture just screams "I have issues".

@ Maddy, we're not talking about pink frilly handcuffs and a light hand spanking here, we're talking about true sadist and masochists.

A lot of people "get their rocks off" on being totally dominated, receiving pain and being humiliated. Who are you to say they're wrong or need to change, as long as everyone involved consents and comes away happy?

Of course the bottom has issues. EVERYONE has issues. The only question is whether the way you deal with your issues is helpful or harmful. Is it healthier for women to "treat" their issues through "shopping therapy", where they put themselves thousands of dollars in credit card debt, simply because that's more common and "normal"?

 

[strollingbones]

caning is an extreme and dangerous if not done properly....but i still disagree with you that someone has to be deficiant to enjoy things of this nature

 

[Cecilie1200]

How did you distill this from what I posted?

That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.

Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.

All sexual behavior is inherently ridiculous, Missourian, even the missionary position. The fact that YOU would not find the doggie-play sexually enjoyable cannot be the test used to determine whether such conduct should be illegal or considered medically abberant enough to call a "symptom of mental illness".

I suggest the test we should use, instead, is does the conduct in any way create an undue risk of physical harm? The answer is clearly "no", and so in my view, anyone who wants to play dress up after shopping at Pets R Us is perfectly free to enjoy.

Caning and being nailed to a board fails the undue risk test.

Incorrect. There are ways to do both that do not do lasting harm.

 

[Madeline]

If crimes were committed against a minor, they may have a case. But over the age of 18, five years ago, she was free to leave. Abuse? Probably. Slavery? Doubtful.

Do I need physical chains to hold you captive?

Many battered women would say 'no'

Domestic violence is a different crime from slavery. I'm not even sure all 50 states have slavery statutes, though the fed does. Each one would be somewhat different, but I'd expect they all involved some form of physical restraint...actual imprisonment, withholding a passport, etc.

"Slavery" is not the legal equivalent of any other crime, not even "trafficking".

Chanel is correct; on these facts, it is doubtful slavery will even be charged, or could be proven.

 

[Madeline]

How did you distill this from what I posted?

That you require this level of hyperbole to refute my post speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument.

Caning a bound, naked sexual partner then leading them on all fours on a leash and forcing them to eat out of a dog bowl then locking them in a tiny cage to experience sexual satisfaction borders on psychopathic...and I don't require the expertise of a psychiatric journal to recognize that.

All sexual behavior is inherently ridiculous, Missourian, even the missionary position. The fact that YOU would not find the doggie-play sexually enjoyable cannot be the test used to determine whether such conduct should be illegal or considered medically abberant enough to call a "symptom of mental illness".

I suggest the test we should use, instead, is does the conduct in any way create an undue risk of physical harm? The answer is clearly "no", and so in my view, anyone who wants to play dress up after shopping at Pets R Us is perfectly free to enjoy.

Caning and being nailed to a board fails the undue risk test.

I'd put the bar far further out, Missourian. Risk of death would be my benchmark; I would be willing to criminalize very few consensual behaviors between adults that do not involve this. Take scarification and blood play; the fact is, without one party being infected, blood play can be quite safe. I doubt you'd find any reported death in the US attributable to it. Does that mean I approve? Of course not...but neither do I approve of any other extreme body modification and the whole vampire thingie leaves me cold.

I just don't see why my personal sexual appetites should dictate the outer limits of anyone else's behavior.

 

[strollingbones]

one thing i have discovered....you cant convince someone if they dont understand...its as simple as that....