Puppy play gone wrong... (78)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

4 Apr 07, 2:31 PM
x_Red_x
4 yrs
Manniq wrote:
Is that what you want? For redred and her ilk to post emotionally about the horrors of rape, whilst men come on here and describe in graphic detail what they would like to do to any woman who made a false allegation?
So, John, what are my "ilk" that you have a problem with? I made a statement here originally, it was very simple. Rape won't be taken seriously until men are the main victims. Is that *really* describing the horrors of rape, or is it just voicing a despair at a system that addresses women in a patronising manner - as you are wont to do?
According to you on this thread alone we are incapable of rational thought, we are incapable of viewing something without involving emotions and you seem to suggest that we are clearly too stupid to be involved in any process that involves thought above the "what shall I make for tea" level.
So who are my *ilk*, John? Or is this just a personal attack by you?
Red
www.fallenangeldesign.co.uk
Happily ensconced with my true Master
Edited 4 Apr 07, 2:55 PM by x_Red_x

4 Apr 07, 2:33 PM
x_Red_x
4 yrs
Manniq wrote:

redred wrote:

Manniq wrote:
Well, that would be dreadful if it were presently true. But it isn't. Details of sexual history are now excluded from cross-exam unless they can be shown to be absolutely relevant. Which does not give the amount of leeway you might imagine.
Unfortunately leeway and relevance are in the eyes of a judge, not you. And not all judges carry the clarity of mind that would be desired in these cases.
I point you to the case of a girl who had to endure her rapist acting as his own counsel and therefore cross examining the girl in *great* detail over several hours before the judge finally intervened. Some leeway, some relevance, some total bloody farce.
<snip>
A case which happened a long time ago - and since which, alleged rapists have been barred from conducting their own cross-examination. My sense is that the case is over a decade old - though mq may be able to date it more precisely.
It would help if you did not try to debate the issue on the basis of what is, in legal terms, ancient history.
Regards,
John
Unfortunately ancient history *is* relevant, even that written in books of statute and precident. In fact even more so there. You can be as dismissive of this as you like, John, but the fact remains that if it was 10 years ago and it is still present in *MY* sieve like mind, then you can bet your ass it's going to be at the forefront of anyone elses who has to go to trial as a rape victim. Male or female. People don't suddenly go "oh, quick, I've been raped, let me look in the law books and see what the current situation is with regards my cross examination". Vox Populi is as big a factor in this as anything else when it comes to reporting the crime and considering beginning the prosecutorial process for a civilian. If only lawyers were raped we wouldn't have a problem. In fact I can see certain upsides to that scenario, starting with a reduction in the numbers of people training to be lawyers!
Red
www.fallenangeldesign.co.uk
Happily ensconced with my true Master

4 Apr 07, 2:40 PM
Princess_Kitty
3 yrs
spankomike wrote:

frapperia wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/652266...
This is worrying and makes puppy play seem like a really negative thing. Clearly this particular man was coerced into the situation, but for a lot of us, this (apart from the washing powder - wtf???) wouldn't be that big a thing. It's humiliation, the cigarette burning is a pain thing and the shaving, well, that is a little bit silly, but I'm sure some people on here do it to their subs.
This only makes BDSM look worse in the eyes of the 'vanilla' crowd, and I don't really know what to think about it. Is it terrible that I thought most of what that article was talking about sounded like a brilliant (if unrealistic) fantasy?
Puppy play? I wouldn't treat my dog like that, and I wouldn't treat a human like that. It annoys me that people think it is normal to mistreat animals, because it is only a short step from being cruel to animals to being cruel to humans. As Dr Doolittle said, 'Why do we treat animals.. like animals?
My understand of puppy play is that it is about a loving relationship between 'puppy' and owner, much like that experienced by true loving pet owners.. Sigh..

you watched doctor Dolittle aswell!
i love my cats i wouldn't dream of abusing them. it seems to be non consensual but as others have said it doesnt seem to matter in the eyes of the law. no win situation
I may be cute but fuck with me you WILL get a shock!
http://www.myspace.com/maddison_whips

4 Apr 07, 2:41 PM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 10 yrs

Manniq wrote:
Your bowdlerisation of my "reasonable belief that she was agreeing" is beyond belief. Its not a "technicality". It goes to the heart of the law on this matter.
That would be a 'woosh' of my argument going over your head I think. You're totally ignoring the point I've made that cases don't hinge on 'reasonable belief' criteria, they fail because the jury have nothing to go on but the conflicting word of two people. Just because a jury can't say for certain that a man isn't lying doesn't mean that he isn't or that the incident happened because of a break down in communication.
And again, Just because 1 in 5 women say they have been raped I don't see how you can make any *unprejudiced* assumptions about why that is.
If you had any actual evidence we might have some meat and bones to argue about...
- Chris
"I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal
Edited 4 Apr 07, 2:42 PM by Backdooruk

4 Apr 07, 2:45 PM
foibey
UK, 5 yrs

So if a rapist can convince themselves that someone consented it's not rape?
moo

4 Apr 07, 2:46 PM
x_Red_x
4 yrs
Manniq wrote:

redred wrote:

Manniq wrote:
Is that what you want? For redred and her ilk to post emotionally about the horrors of rape, whilst men come on here and describe in graphic detail what they would like to do to any woman who made a false allegation?
So, John, what are my "ilk" that you have a problem with? I made a statement here originally, it was very simple. Rape won't be taken seriously until men are the main victims. Is that *really* describing the horrors of rape, or is it just voicing a despair at a system that addresses women in a patronising manner - as you are wont to do?
According to you on this thread alone we are incapable of rational thought, we are incapable of viewing something without involving emotions and you seem to suggest that we are clearly too stupid to be involved in any process that involves thought about the "what shall I make for tea" level.
So who are my *ilk*, John? Or is this just a personal attack by you?

Its pretty circular.
Your ilk is people who think in ways similar to yourself. I suppose I could try to categorise you, byut that was neither the intention nor the point.
As for the continuing victim status: yes, your original comment was relatively anodyne compared to what followed. But I would still say that you went for the rhetoric rather than the argument.
I don't believe that the present state of the law is about whether men are victims of rape or not - and to suggest that it is is a complete skewing of debate.
Continuing victim status? Well, yes. You insinuate a great deal about what you believe my view of female thinking is. Its largely wrong.
If you consider 'patronising' to have to do with calling someone on an obvious ignorance of the law, then so be it - but I tend to patronise both sexes in equal measure. Just ask MKane about my posts whenever he gets onhis high horse about immigration!
Are women incapble of rational thought on this issue? I have never said that - though perhaps some individuals are.
Rather, I am not sure that women are very good at informed debate on this issue.
The absolute bottom line is that as a crime, rape is defined in terms of the perpetrator's beliefs - NOT the beliefs of the victim. Since rape has tended to be taken up as a "women's issue" - and too often debated as that, I do think that a fundamental misapprehension has crept into the deabte - which is that rape occurs "when a woman says no".
It doesn't - and I would say that it is a tragedy for the debate that people believe that.
Regards,
John
You're right, you do patronise both sexes. As for women not being able to partake of INFORMED debate on this issue, I have to presume that you would be sufficiently even handed in preclude from the debate not only anyone who has ever been raped, but also anyone who has ever felt that they had been raped, anyone who has ever perpetrated rape, or been accused of rape, anyone who has ever known a rapist, read about a rape, indulged in rape fantasies, prosecuted a rape, anyone who has ever defended a rape, anyone who has ever sat in a court room, for whatever reason, during a rape trial, anyone who has ever discussed the issue or rape, anyone who has ever researched statistics on rape or who has ever known anyone who has been involved in any of these processes. Which would rather include you, since you bring your own agenda to the table. It would result in a room with only a few people, probably unable to communicate due to language barriers and who have lived in near complete isolation for their entire lives.
It is possible to be a victim and be impartial. It is possible to be female and informed. It is perfectly possible that you have brought an agenda to this debate that skews things not necessarily in favour of the man you counselled, but in the favour of those that wish to perputrate acts on others that are non-consentual in the eyes of the victims. I agree that there are 2 sides to every story. It's quite right that there should be when 2 people are involved. But beware giving those that would take the opportunity to do so the rope with which to hang others.
As for my *ilk*. Honestly? I have yet to meet them. I stand in a group of one, and I always have done. My past, my family history and the way in which I choose to live my life ensure that it will always be so.

Red
www.fallenangeldesign.co.uk
Happily ensconced with my true Master

4 Apr 07, 2:49 PM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 10 yrs

foibey wrote:
So if a rapist can convince themselves that someone consented it's not rape?
It's not legally rape if the accused *reasonably* believed there was consent (it changed in the 2003 sexual offences act).
However I doubt that's much of an issue in most cases, especially since the government's own figures show little change in the conviction rate since this change was made.
- Chris
"I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal
Edited 4 Apr 07, 2:50 PM by Backdooruk

4 Apr 07, 2:53 PM
webmonkey
2 yrs

Manniq wrote:
Since the figures you quote are utter tosh...
oh.. so your unsubsantiated figures are fine, but mine aren't, I see...

Manniq wrote:
there is little point in taking the rest of your post seriously.
gee, how handy for you... can i discount your views on the basis of your poor punctuation?

Manniq wrote:
You cannot estimate the proportion of rape in the population from self-report by alleged victims. Not unless they are psychic.
since a estimate is essentially an educated guess - then of course you can. notice the attempt to suggest that people who don't share his views claim to have sypernatural powers...

Manniq wrote:
So what on earth are you basing your figures on?
There are numerous sources for these figures - you might start here - http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16...
but given your reluctance to accept the basic precepts of social research, combined with your semi-legalisic pedantry you use to support your views, I doubt you'd accept any evidence that contradicts your own opinion

4 Apr 07, 2:59 PM
MKane
7 yrs [quot
redred wrote:
Yeah, right. How well you know me. Not. Actually I'm sitting here with a cup of tea, a smile on my face and one of my cats beside me. Far from the angry little missy that doesn't understand the world that you would love to paint me as, or the PMT ridden hag that would destroy all men, I am actually nothing like either of those.
About as well as you know me. All you can do is cast insinuation and straw-man fallacies in a pitiful attempt to distract and twist the issues.
I bet you even think John Leslie really raped Ulrika. Pffft.
--------------------------------------------------- -
"Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose" Helen Keller (1880-1968)

4 Apr 07, 3:02 PM
x_Red_x
4 yrs
MKane wrote:

redred wrote:

MKane wrote:
Have you taken your medication today? Take a chill pill.
I can almost picture you sitting there, veins pulsing in your head, eyes bulging with fury, gnashing your teeth and foaming at the mouth as you type. LMAO
Yeah, right. How well you know me. Not. Actually I'm sitting here with a cup of tea, a smile on my face and one of my cats beside me. Far from the angry little missy that doesn't understand the world that you would love to paint me as, or the PMT ridden hag that would destroy all men, I am actually nothing like either of those.
About as well as you know me. All you can do is cast insinuation and straw-man fallacies in a pitiful attempt to distract and twist the issues.
I bet you even think John Leslie really raped Ulrika. Pffft.
Gee, that reply was a long time coming. And just like your so called facts honey, you got your quotes twisted up. Here, let me untangle them for you...
There you go, now you run along back to your pseudo facts and play nicely.
Red
www.fallenangeldesign.co.uk
Happily ensconced with my true Master
Edited 4 Apr 07, 3:21 PM by x_Red_x

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent