Amorous Propensities : sex is funny, sex is sad

How can anyone avoid this from happening?

Hard to know what to say.

She may have told him she wanted a nonconsensual relationship. But he’d have been a fool to not release her the moment she asked to be. There is no legal slavery in the US.

Or she may have suddenly felt guilty about what she’d done and gone to the police. I’m pretty sure I’ve read of that happening before.

Or he may really be an evil man who deserves the most stringent punishment.

Maybe more sense can be made of what happened during the trial.

I agree, consentual non-consent is such a croc of shit. I’m pretty anti-bdsm anyway, nothing personal, but for two adults say that some silly little gesture like signing a fake contract or having some sort of ceremony actually means one person has given up their right to say “no” (or “red light” or “bannana” or whatever) is absurd.
Its a throwback to traditional marriage in a society that no longer recognizes such bullcrap. If that was the case I hope reality comes crashing down on this guy and hard. Even if he was too dumb to realize what would eventually happen when she got away he should demonstrated simple human empathy when it bacame apparent tht she really wanted out, regardless of what utterly meaningless little agreemnt they might have thought they made.

anti-bdsm

Very few people play the specific game you seem to generalize into all of BDSM play. For most of us it is play. Fun.

Its a throwback to traditional marriage in a society that no longer recognizes such bullcrap.

Don’t forget there are F/m, M/m and F/f relationships.

“Very few people play the specific game you seem to generalize into all of BDSM play. For most of us it is play. Fun.”

I mean that I’m anti-bdsm in general, but this specific incident appears to be more than just a game other people play that I don’t personally approve of but ultimately should have no say in, but rather something totally immoral and beyond the pale

“Don’t forget there are F/m, M/m and F/f relationships.”

Traditional marriage happened to be gender-structured in a way that d/s isn’t, but the point is that both in traditional marriage in d/s relationships of the sort that Richard was specualting that they had one person thinks they own the other. I could care less about the genders of the people involved.

I also know Mr Marcus personally; I have for years. He is a friend of mine. True and informed consent was always his highest priority in his BDSM acts. I believe that where there is consent, there is no abuse. What two…or more consenting adults choose to do to and with each other is their business. He always operated under informed consent. Always.

If she ever said “Let me go” he should have instantly.

If she had an after the the fact attack of moral squeamishness then he has my deepest sympathy.

Another possibility is that the FBI wanted to bust a porn website owner. Found the woman and tricked or extorted her cooperation.

Does anyone knows what the site was?

was it insex.com?

Vampmaster

is it at all possible that maybe she just got mad at him for some reason and decided this was an awesome way to get even? Most Doms i know, would never be bothered with the dangers of taking someone nonconsentually when in fact there are so many of us out here that would submit willingly. And despite the fact that the pics on his site seem to show unwilling, tearful, tortured subjects, the key word is SEEM. When i am tortured, i cringe, i cry, i whimper, i scream, but it is still what i wanted to happen.

There’s almost no way of knowing. After all, the bottoms in the Spanner case were charged with aiding and abetting assaults against themselves.

If anyone has information regarding Glenn Marcus relevant to his legal situation please call his attorneys Maurice Sercarz or Julia Gatto at the law firm of Sercarz and Riopelle at 1-212-586-4900

Hi,

This person got was he deserved.

Slavery, owning a human being and torture are prohobited by criminal law, even if there is consent.

There is some rights we can’t give them up.

Right to life, freedom, dinity, safety, physical integrity.

BDSM is a dangerous phenomenon. We shoould stop it soon.

Take a look at this letter from the “Government” (that is, the legal team prosecuting Glenn Marcus) requesting that the witnesses against him be allowed to conceal their identities, denying him his right to confrontation. They Government argues that the witnesses may in danger of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the community were some sort of mafia that attacks people who endanger its freedom. Of course, this acknowledges that the case is, in fact, a threat to the sexual freedom of BDSMers…

 An excerpt from a Government letter dated 10/27/2006, available from public records…
 The limited protections requested by the government are

necessary and appropriate to protect the witnesses’ safety and well-being, avoid potential harassment of the witnesses by the press and others, and prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences, such as loss of employment. In addition, Marcus’s arrest and prosecution has prompted heated debate online among members of the BDSM community and others, some of whom see the government’s prosecution as oppressive and a threat to their sexual freedom. These individuals could similarly view the witnesses’ testimony for the government as offensive and wrong, which could lead to retaliation against the witnesses. Thus, the limited protections requested by government are necessary to protect the witnesses from potential harm, harassment, undue embarrassment and retaliation.

That letter does NOT deny Marcus the opportunity to face those testifying against him. He would know exactly who those witnesses are, and his attorney(s) have every right to examine and cross examine their testimony.

The public at large are the ones who are denied the opportunity to see these witnesses.. NOT the accused.

In the event that the witnesses against the defendant have their identities concealed, how can any outside followers of the trial who may have evidence against the witness’ credibility know to come forward?

In short, perhaps the defendant’s screening process failed and he ‘played with’ a well-known crazy, liar, or just plain mentally-unstable individual. Were this individual’s identity to be known to the BDSM community, the defendant may have a reasonable chance at discrediting them.

Whatever happened to “slave contracts”?

Guess he should have removed her pictures when she asked him to. Since he refused, he deserves his ass kicked.

Constitutional law arguments aside we as a country and a society have come to a point of decision. When a woman in Texas is convicted of a crime for selling adult toys, but a President receives oral sex in the White House with no repercussions and vehement support by a large number of people, it makes me wonder if there is such a thing as right and wrong. I have lived in and out of the bdsm lifestyle for nearly 20 years, and while this man in New York may or may not have made wise choices (obviously this woman was a poor choice) it begs an answer to a larger question. Who is to decide what is right for two people to engage in? Not so very many years ago homosexual couples were ostracized by society and denied many of the same “rights” as a heterosexual couple. Now some courts have decided it is ok and there is a push to legalize homosexual marriage across the country. I hear the arguments of consentual versus non-consentual, but answer this for me. Does a baby, adopted by a homosexual couple have any consent in the decision to be reared in this environment? Maybe that child would go up and be homsexual maybe not. Maybe his or her ideas of sexuality will be radically altered by the lifestyle they are raised in. That is the argument I have not heard in any of these debates. If this woman did leave, then choose to return to go on picnics, or engage in more sexual activity with him, then there is no logical way to conclude she did not enter into this relationship knowingly from the beginning. I liken this to the false rape allegations that are regularly made. They demean the actual victims of rape, and destroy innocent lives to purge guilt, exact revenge, or simply give attention to someone willing to destroy someone else to get it. I watched a teacher’s life get ruined by two girls who did not make a volleyball team in high school, then turn around and accuse the coach of molesting them in the locker room. They eventually recanted, but the damage was done. He had been fired, and the publicity and even the hint of impropriety forced him to change his career because he could not get another job teaching and coaching. The worst part to me is that there were no repercussions against them, beyond the embarassment of admitting they lied. They moved, but basically went on with their lives. This man lost his job, his wife and kids, and more than we probably know in emotional turmoil and was bascially told sorry, we had to investigate as if it were real. As a member of this lifestyle, or community, or sub-culture, or whatever other term you wish to give it, it is appalling to me that the government still feels it can mandate its own morality. We as a society have certain obligations: protect children, protect each other from murder, rape, robbery, extortion, and fraud, and we all agree that these actions are a detriment to a civilized society. The fact that a woman wants to be “tortured” or to live as a slave is offensive to some in our society does not give those people the obligation or the right to force their morality on anyone else in society. In case they have forgotten, that is one of the primary reasons we are not still part of the United Kingdom. If the government has no right to tell us who or how to worship, it has no right to tell us what sexual activities two consenting adults may engage in. And consent should not and cannot be defined after the fact. If someone consents, and then feels guilty, embarassed, etc, over their behavior, they do not have the right to rescind their consent from previous activity and charge that person with violating their right to say no. That change of mind should only apply to future activity. What’s next? Criminal prosecution for someone who cheats on you and breaks your heart? Is the violation of the oath taken during a traditional marriage ceremony now going to become a matter for criminal courts? Beware the slippery slope this path leads down. The gentleman who is “anti-bdsm” is more than welcome to his opinion and more than welcome to abstain from any “bdsm-like” activity, but that does not give him the right to restrict what I do in my bedroom with a consenting adult female. It is amusing that smoking causes more problems in our society than “obscene” websites, yet smoking is legal. Why? Money. I would like to see the gentleman’s response to the government telling him which church he can attend, or which music he can listen to, particularly if his choices were suddenly outlawed. I do not know all the facts of the case of this man from New York, and frankly no one but him and this woman know all the details of what actually happened and was agreed upon beforehand. She had the right to walk away if she changed her mind and things were not what she envisioned them to be, but if she made a rash decision that put her in jeopardy, where is the burden of blame on her? If you deliberately walk out into the middle of a busy street and assume everyone will stop, is it the motorist who cannot stop and hits you that is at fault? If he kept her restrained against her will, he is at fault and should be punished. If “against her will” was part of their agreement, then it is obvious there was a huge misunderstanding about what each of them wanted and they each should shoulder the burden of blame for that.