|
|
w**k is a four-letter word (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} esorlehcar) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2006-02-19 14:27:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Some fun rape/BDSM wank on Metafilter:
TheSmokingGun recently posted a Contract of Wifely Duties turned over to the police in an Iowa case in which a man is charged is kidnapping and raping his wife, along with some child pornography charges.
The unsigned "contract" (which the wife says she never agreed to but was forced to abide by) could, from the facts in evidence, be read either as the work of a insane control freak spousal abuser or a BDSM enthusiast who doesn't put much stock in the "safe, sane and consensual" side of things (among the other things, the contract does not include a safeword and provides for severe punishment should the wife attempt to say no to anything). Or both, I suppose - one doesn't exactly preclude the other.
When the post hits metafilter, there is a predictable amount of spooge from both sides.
In one corner, we have Space Coyote and Peeping_Thomist, among others, claiming that all BDSM is wrong and those who practice it are sick, disgusting perverts, regardless of consent, and a plethora of other lesser but still strongly perjorative comments about BDSM as a practice, whatever the circumstances.
In the other, we have Insomnia_lj, who claims that the wife is just a bratty sub who deserves a good spanking, that the existence of an unsigned contract that the wife says she never agreed to is proof that it was all consensual because there's no way that anyone who write up such a document unless they knew their spouse wanted them to (to be fair, (s)he at first claims that it's "possible" someone could write up a contract without approval and consent, but then uses it repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread to "prove" that the relationship was completely consensual), and, perhaps my favorite, that even if the husband is an abuser, it isn't his fault, because the existence of the contract proves the wife consented, no matter what the wife herself says about it. (S)he follows that gem by claiming that (s)he "hates to speculate too much."
(S)he also helpfully explains why the child porn charges are obviously bogus, with a little help from soiled cowboy, who speculates that the evil wife downloaded the porn herself to get her poor husband in trouble.
There's more wank scattered throughout the comments, as well as some interesting discussion... some it is actually worth reading beyond the WTF factor.
TheSmokingGun recently posted a Contract of Wifely Duties turned over to the police in an Iowa case in which a man is charged is kidnapping and raping his wife, along with some child pornography charges.
The unsigned "contract" (which the wife says she never agreed to but was forced to abide by) could, from the facts in evidence, be read either as the work of a insane control freak spousal abuser or a BDSM enthusiast who doesn't put much stock in the "safe, sane and consensual" side of things (among the other things, the contract does not include a safeword and provides for severe punishment should the wife attempt to say no to anything). Or both, I suppose - one doesn't exactly preclude the other.
When the post hits metafilter, there is a predictable amount of spooge from both sides.
In one corner, we have Space Coyote and Peeping_Thomist, among others, claiming that all BDSM is wrong and those who practice it are sick, disgusting perverts, regardless of consent, and a plethora of other lesser but still strongly perjorative comments about BDSM as a practice, whatever the circumstances.
In the other, we have Insomnia_lj, who claims that the wife is just a bratty sub who deserves a good spanking, that the existence of an unsigned contract that the wife says she never agreed to is proof that it was all consensual because there's no way that anyone who write up such a document unless they knew their spouse wanted them to (to be fair, (s)he at first claims that it's "possible" someone could write up a contract without approval and consent, but then uses it repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread to "prove" that the relationship was completely consensual), and, perhaps my favorite, that even if the husband is an abuser, it isn't his fault, because the existence of the contract proves the wife consented, no matter what the wife herself says about it. (S)he follows that gem by claiming that (s)he "hates to speculate too much."
(S)he also helpfully explains why the child porn charges are obviously bogus, with a little help from soiled cowboy, who speculates that the evil wife downloaded the porn herself to get her poor husband in trouble.
There's more wank scattered throughout the comments, as well as some interesting discussion... some it is actually worth reading beyond the WTF factor.
Post a comment in response:
