Domestic hiss

[RJMasters]

I think they were kinky and she backed out. Maybe because the fellow struck her as unstable due to other things he did or said. Very few people are so oblivious to the world and to others that they would write a contract like that out of the blue for a vanilla partner with no inkling of bdsm.

I liked the big letters showing sexual acts. Wish I had that font in my collection.

This is probably not the same font but you might enjoy this one none the less

http://www.1001fonts.com/font_details.html?font_id=130

 

[catalina_francisco]

I actually found it to be very mild as things go....he didn't say she had to perfrom with pain, he said she had to inform him if a particular situation was going to cause pain or hurt before doing it, and if possible suggest ways to avoid the problem short of refusing to do it....she would only be seen as being disobedient or not fulfilling the expectations if she refused outright, or said nothing until after entering into the situation. That to me seems very responsible and caring of her welfare in that he is making it clear he does not want her to do something just for the sake of pleasing and that he is open to finding ways to prevent her pain. Sort of reminds me of the discussions we have here about subs who refuse to use safewords and endure and forget the responsibility of the Dominant is then threatened and undermined because the sub decides to take the risk on themselves then possibly scream blue murder afterward.

I missed where he said it was not BDSM related, but he did say it was not a contract but a set of rules....sheesh, our set of rules are much more demanding and involved than these. He doesn't even require her to swallow cum or have anal sex without warning ahead of time....during his time she only has to perform sexually in ways which exclude these 2 acts. That to me is very mild. Sheesh a head job must last at least 5 minutes!!! That is severe to some?!! Then on top of it all she is allowed to request changes to be made to the rules as long as she does it in the specified time frame...that again is fairly average in D/s agreements. And he wants to lavish her with lingerie and sexy shoes and clothes....hmm, can think of a few of us here who would see that as a plus, not minus.

What I did find a bit strange was she was to shave her chest and from navel to anus....what sort of woman was this?!!! I don't actually see him as the idiot some have suggested except if he did write it his grammar was a bit off, but then it could have been a draft as well which is often rough. Why smart? Given the current US attitude to BDSM practices etc., (and a contract would never be taken seriously in a court of law anyway) he was smart in specifiying it was not such a contract but only a set of rules. He also did not mention inflicting any physical punishment on her, no mention of anything which could be seen as physical aspects of SM whoch are the targeted areas of the powers that be.

The child porn on the PC could be nothing to do with him in that they could have been put there by someone else, or even pop ups which though it can be traced I believe to be from that source, perhaps it is easier for authorities to blame him to get a conviction. Perhaps she was one who had a lot of fantasies but thought it was all a game where she could choose if and when she stuck to the agreement depending on her mood and decided after awhile it was too much for her and she could do better without him, but with any assetts they had to herself. Maybe I am just a little cynical given I read so many people who harbor these fantasies but then find they do not like the reality, or worse think it could/should never be a reality for anyone.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

OK, according to this report , the kidnapping charges came about because he tied her to the bed (allegedly because he was angry she took their 2 daughters to church) and had sex with her 3 times which is being used to lay sexual assault charges as well. So does this mean if you tie your partner (whom you live with) to a bed you are kidnapping them according to US law? That is getting even more dangerous to practice BDSM than before if it is so. This article, and more so another 2 I found, made it sound as if it was at this time he presented her with the rules after 9 years of marriage...but his defence say he did not write the rules or have anything to do with them and that they have been fabricated to back up her story. Of course, the media being into sensationalising instead of providing facts, keep referring to 'the contract' even though whoever wrote it has stated it is not a contract. One person commented on one of the stories I read, how was she married to him for 9 years and not see any of this in him if it was so against what she wanted?!! Apparently this one eventful day has been her only complaint to the powers that be.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

OK, according to this report , the kidnapping charges came about because he tied her to the bed (allegedly because he was angry she took their 2 daughters to church) and had sex with her 3 times which is being used to lay sexual assault charges as well. So does this mean if you tie your partner (whom you live with) to a bed you are kidnapping them according to US law? That is getting even more dangerous to practice BDSM than before if it is so. This article, and more so another 2 I found, made it sound as if it was at this time he presented her with the rules after 9 years of marriage...but his defence say he did not write the rules or have anything to do with them and that they have been fabricated to back up her story. Of course, the media being into sensationalising instead of providing facts, keep referring to 'the contract' even though whoever wrote it has stated it is not a contract.

Catalina

This whole thing stinks. I find it very frustrating that we don't have and probably never will have enough facts to know what was going on here.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

This whole thing stinks. I find it very frustrating that we don't have and probably never will have enough facts to know what was going on here.

Fury

Hmm, well they do have prisoner penpal and online pal services....perhaps he will register and I suspect given confessed serial killers have no problem, he will have a long line of women lining up for his affections. Wonder if we wrote if he would tell us all the details.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

Hmm, well they do have prisoner penpal and online pal services....perhaps he will register and I suspect given confessed serial killers have no problem, he will have a long line of women lining up for his affections. Wonder if we wrote if he would tell us all the details.

Catalina

Not if he was smart. I believe that when you have an ongoing legal case which many prisoners do, appeals and such it's best to keep the details of your case to yourself and your lawyer.

Even if he did, we would only know his side of it and/or how he wanted to present things. *shrugs* Still, I could be interesting.

I bet he will get a lot of mail come to think of it.

Fury

 

[raven2]

OK, according to this report , the kidnapping charges came about because he tied her to the bed (allegedly because he was angry she took their 2 daughters to church) and had sex with her 3 times which is being used to lay sexual assault charges as well. So does this mean if you tie your partner (whom you live with) to a bed you are kidnapping them according to US law? That is getting even more dangerous to practice BDSM than before if it is so. This article, and more so another 2 I found, made it sound as if it was at this time he presented her with the rules after 9 years of marriage...but his defence say he did not write the rules or have anything to do with them and that they have been fabricated to back up her story. Of course, the media being into sensationalising instead of providing facts, keep referring to 'the contract' even though whoever wrote it has stated it is not a contract. One person commented on one of the stories I read, how was she married to him for 9 years and not see any of this in him if it was so against what she wanted?!! Apparently this one eventful day has been her only complaint to the powers that be.

Catalina

In this case it would not be a crime to tie your partner to the bed and have sex with them, but to do it against their will would put it into the sexual assault catagory. If It wasn't written like that there would be no way to protect people in ABUSIVE (notre I did not say BDSM) relationships.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In this case it would not be a crime to tie your partner to the bed and have sex with them, but to do it against their will would put it into the sexual assault catagory. If It wasn't written like that there would be no way to protect people in ABUSIVE (notre I did not say BDSM) relationships.

I actually specialise in domestic violence therapy so I don't need that defined, but what is important here is what is being reported does not seem to add up to abuse without lots of loose ends which are not explained. Seems as it does not fit the vanilla world, or likely more to the point makes better copy and is easily accepted if he is being framed, the guy is being railroaded and convicted before it even gets to court.


Catalina

 

[raven2]

I actually specialise in domestic violence therapy so I don't need that defined, but what is important here is what is being reported does not seem to add up to abuse without lots of loose ends which are not explained. Seems as it does not fit the vanilla world, or likely more to the point makes better copy and is easily accepted if he is being framed, the guy is being railroaded and convicted before it even gets to court.


Catalina

I understand what you are saying. As an advanced EMT in NY, I am a mandated abuse reporter. It is always a very slippery slope because I feel you really can't bring up something like that in your report unless it is obvious. It is important to make sure that people are protected but the government is so sensitized to it these days that any mention can have children taken from a home where they were just being punished for infractions and no abuse was taking place. Certainly the same can be happening in this situation. All the more so because of the "deviant" nature of the document.

 

[graceanne]

I actually specialise in domestic violence therapy so I don't need that defined, but what is important here is what is being reported does not seem to add up to abuse without lots of loose ends which are not explained. Seems as it does not fit the vanilla world, or likely more to the point makes better copy and is easily accepted if he is being framed, the guy is being railroaded and convicted before it even gets to court.


Catalina

Gotta love the media, huh. If he's innocent I feel bad for him.

 

[bridgeburner]

Try this on for size --- couple married for 9 years has the sorts of problems that any couple might have. She was raised a good Church-going girl but she married a sort of "bad-boy" and he led her into a kinky but fairly standard marriage. He's kinked and she's seduced but they're pretty tame and they raise their children and live a pretty normal life but as the years go on she becomes dissatisfied and they have the kinds of problems that any couple has and she starts to miss the church and worry about the state of her childrens' souls and it becomes a bone of contention between them along with whatever other strife they have.

And so she confides in her family or her friends or some other well-meaning Churchy type about her fears and she may or may not clue them in about her sexual life with her hubby but she decides she's going to take those babies to church!!!

And so she does and it's really not about church or about sex or eternal damnation it's about the breakdown of a marriage and so when hubby finds out and responds as he's probably responded to her disobedience in the past THIS time wifey decides she's had it.

Her husband is a pervert and she can PROVE it. She can take the house and the children and send the slimeball to jail and spend the rest of her days being washed in the blood of the lamb and all she's got to do is stretch the truth a bit.

Now, perhaps, the guy really is a slimeball who snapped and presented his vanilla wife of 9 years with this List of Rules out of the blue after tying her to a bed and raping her multiple times --- let's call it what it is, alright? If we're going to believe what we've been told so far this was a perfectly normal family in which the husband suddenly downloaded a pornographic picture of a child, then tied his wife to the bed, raped her repeatedly and then told her she was going to be a sex slave in future. Where are the drug allegations to back that up? Seriously. The story as it's been presented makes no sense at all to those of us who know how these things come about. To the bug-eyed populace eating this up with a spoon, I'm sure it sounds perfectly plausible but they're a bunch of morons anyway.

This sounds like a set-up for a nasty divorce and custody case to me.

Two things: Why not just shave bare? She doesn't HAVE to keep any pubic hair at all, she's got the option, but why bother with the micro-measuring if one doesn't have to? And did you check out how many GBD she gets just for doing the basic things she's told? She could spend half the year doing NOTHING she didn't want to the way I calculate it. What kind of pussy is this guy??


-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

Try this on for size --- couple married for 9 years has the sorts of problems that any couple might have. She was raised a good Church-going girl but she married a sort of "bad-boy" and he led her into a kinky but fairly standard marriage. He's kinked and she's seduced but they're pretty tame and they raise their children and live a pretty normal life but as the years go on she becomes dissatisfied and they have the kinds of problems that any couple has and she starts to miss the church and worry about the state of her childrens' souls and it becomes a bone of contention between them along with whatever other strife they have.

And so she confides in her family or her friends or some other well-meaning Churchy type about her fears and she may or may not clue them in about her sexual life with her hubby but she decides she's going to take those babies to church!!!

And so she does and it's really not about church or about sex or eternal damnation it's about the breakdown of a marriage and so when hubby finds out and responds as he's probably responded to her disobedience in the past THIS time wifey decides she's had it.

Her husband is a pervert and she can PROVE it. She can take the house and the children and send the slimeball to jail and spend the rest of her days being washed in the blood of the lamb and all she's got to do is stretch the truth a bit.

Now, perhaps, the guy really is a slimeball who snapped and presented his vanilla wife of 9 years with this List of Rules out of the blue after tying her to a bed and raping her multiple times --- let's call it what it is, alright? If we're going to believe what we've been told so far this was a perfectly normal family in which the husband suddenly downloaded a pornographic picture of a child, then tied his wife to the bed, raped her repeatedly and then told her she was going to be a sex slave in future. Where are the drug allegations to back that up? Seriously. The story as it's been presented makes no sense at all to those of us who know how these things come about. To the bug-eyed populace eating this up with a spoon, I'm sure it sounds perfectly plausible but they're a bunch of morons anyway.

This sounds like a set-up for a nasty divorce and custody case to me.

Two things: Why not just shave bare? She doesn't HAVE to keep any pubic hair at all, she's got the option, but why bother with the micro-measuring if one doesn't have to? And did you check out how many GBD she gets just for doing the basic things she's told? She could spend half the year doing NOTHING she didn't want to the way I calculate it. What kind of pussy is this guy??


-B

LOL, see you just put it so much better than I did...but I am still wondering about that shaving the chest and from navel to anus thing and what she must look like if she needs to shave those areas!!

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

Okay, smack for the reading impaired. The List specifically mentions Church as a place the whole family attends together so I have no idea why he'd be pissed she took their daughters or why she'd take them without him or what.

I still say it's an opportunistic accusation on the part of a spouse looking for leverage in a custodial dispute and divorce proceedings.


-B

 

[raven2]

LOL, see you just put it so much better than I did...but I am still wondering about that shaving the chest and from navel to anus thing and what she must look like if she needs to shave those areas!!

Catalina

Oh, you are so right!

 

[bridgeburner]

LOL, see you just put it so much better than I did...but I am still wondering about that shaving the chest and from navel to anus thing and what she must look like if she needs to shave those areas!!

Catalina

Maybe she's Portuguese? I have a friend who's hairy like a little monkey. I shit you not, she gets 5 o'clock shadow on her legs thanks to her Portuguese father. Fortunately laser treatments have solved that problem and she retains the benefit of the gorgeous mane of hair, killer eyebrows and a DOUBLE FUCKING ROW of eye-lashes. She's never bought mascara in her life. The woman's a walking wet dream.

-B

 

[rosco rathbone]

That was great, beebs.

 

[catalina_francisco]

OK, on another place I hang, this discussion has been raised also, though more in relations as to why the Frey case is getting so wide a coverage, and another recent one did not. This other case was about a woman losing her cse for a restraining order after it was proved, and she aadmitted to signing a BDSM contract. Interestingly, but not admitted to court, was a webpage she had stating she was looking for a relationship where she would be the Dominant, not the submissive she agreed to on meeting her partner. The contract was not considered legally binding, but was evidence of the llifestyle relationship she had agreed to. There are also some interesting comments/responses from people who are in the lifestyle, at the bottom of the article.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

sheesh, our set of rules are much more demanding and involved than these. He doesn't even require her to swallow cum or have anal sex without warning ahead of time....during his time she only has to perform sexually in ways which exclude these 2 acts. That to me is very mild. Sheesh a head job must last at least 5 minutes!!! That is severe to some?!!

Now now, Catalina...your first paragraph was the egalitarian type I know you to be, but this gets a little into "subbier than thou" territory, doesn't it?

to shave [ ... ] from navel to anus....what sort of woman was this?!!!

Er, well, I have hair there too. I am Jewish by heritage, and a bit fuzzy. So that's not unheard of!

Hey folks!
Tired of reading that fuzzy fax in the funky font? Me too! So I typed it out:
http://www.amanita.net/wifelyexpectations.html

oh hey, this was my 6000th post, nice round number!

 

[chris9]

Not if he was smart. I believe that when you have an ongoing legal case which many prisoners do, appeals and such it's best to keep the details of your case to yourself and your lawyer.

At least around here you shouldn't even let your lawyer know any details. If you confess to him, he has to give this information to the court or else commits a crime. Reason for this: Lawyers are helpers of the law, of right and justice and stuff. So they have duties toward the state as well as toward their client.
For that reason they don't work to make profit. When our teacher told us, my class sure got a chuckle out of that one

 

[catalina_francisco]

Now now, Catalina...your first paragraph was the egalitarian type I know you to be, but this gets a little into "subbier than thou" territory, doesn't it?

I don't see it as such. Given we are supposedly a porn site, the discussions here everyday and their content, and that most of us who are living this lifestyle are expected to do more sexually (and otherwise) than submit to typical vaginal penetration and give head for 5 minutes, to me it seemed mild. Didn't it appear that way to you? I thought so by the tone of your initial post on your own thread about the case where you said you saw it as fairly typical for a contract. It was not meant in any way to measure who was more sub as this women is claiming she isn't anyway so what would be the point? What I did find strange, and which prompted my statement, was that some people here who post much more extreme ideas, practices and desires began to feel outraged he would draw up this set of rules, that it was unusual and over the top, and were condemning him as a monster when I suspect he is being framed for some other purpose.

To me a monster as he is being accused of would be far more demanding than one who makes such demands which overall, not just sexually, were to most of us very light...no pain, no punishment except for losing GBD's (so no corporal punishment such as spankings, whippings, etc), no anal or cum swallowing without previous warning, opportunity to notify if a service is going to cause discomfort or pain and have it possibly changed, opportunity to request rules be changed, no panties (most of us here do that without blinking), told to buy and wear sexy lingerie, stockings etc. (most of us wish we had more such things in our wardrobe, no?), told to buy a new toy for his birthday (once again most of us lament we don't get to buy as many toys as we would like and this man is encouraging and supporting it!!)...come on, this is not a demanding contract or set of rules in BDSM terms which is what we were mostly discussing here, and to compare it to our own is not trying to be subbier than thou IMHO, just discussing and reminding people not to get carried away with sensationalised press attitudes without looking at the facts as we know them first, by contrasting it to our own.

Catalina

 

[stirbird]

Now now, Catalina...your first paragraph was the egalitarian type I know you to be, but this gets a little into "subbier than thou" territory, doesn't it?

I hope you meant this as a joke.

We're all so deeply worried about being politically incorrect and not appearing as "holier than thou" or "more extreme than thou." I see this worry as a disease all in itself. A disease whose root is hypocricy, a much more serious and debilitating ailment than occasionally appearing more extreme than someone else when one speaks the truth about one's relationship.

I saw C's post as honest opinion and critical comparison. I saw no intimation of "subbier than thou" or show or arrogance. If it is arrogance to talk about one's personal life realities than almost all of us are in danger of having our wings melt from hubris.

To say that the contract in question is not really a master-slave contract is correct: he's making all sorts of concessions to his wife throughout it. It's clear that the power in that relationship, if the contract reflects reality, is shared between the two, or else quite muddy and confused. The whole tone is kind of pathetic: of a man trying to assume power when he knows he really has none. His rules, which is what Catalina addressed, do appear soft to those of us used to more demanding partners. I think the reason they are soft is because he didn't dare to really lay down the law in that particular relationship. So? What's wrong with making that point but talking about how your own real experience differs from his?

Speaking this simple truth is not going on a "subbier than thou" trip, it's presenting useful information about one's personal life which provides a useful contrast to his contract that helps place it within its proper context--not as the extremed crazed criminal ravings that The Smoking Gun spun it as, but as part of a spectrum of power exchange exchange relationships which people voluntarily engage in, and somewhere at the lower (but that I mean simply less power exchanged), more confused end of that continuium, in fact.

Not speaking up about what is truth for oneself is the real hypocritical lie, a cowardly kowtow to group majority opinion, and not very useful or informative to anybody. Not speaking the truth about one's relationship when what one does or believes within that relationship goes against majority SSC bdsm opinion only does one thing: it avoids you the personal sting of false accusations such as "subbier than thou" or "more extreme than thou" but it doesn't help a group of people trying to learn from each other in any way. In fact, such silence hinders understanding, acceptance and (perhaps the most important value of all) tolerance.

So let's not contribute to silencing people with valuable contributions by implying they're on some sort of ego trip, kk?

 

[Etoile]

So let's not contribute to silencing people with valuable contributions by implying they're on some sort of ego trip, kk?

Wow. I'm surprised to see someone would think that of me. I'm not sure if I know you (your name is not familiar) but I assure you I have no interest in silencing people. Whether I think someone is on an ego trip or not has no connection to whether I feel someone has the right to speak their mind. It may be that I didn't make myself as clear as I should have, but I am a bit hurt by the accusation of censorship.

My original comment was meant lightheartedly. As is easy to do in online discussion, I misinterpreted Catalina's intention with her words. Based on my misinterpretation, I waggled my finger at her - which I thought was indicated by the "Now now" and the wink at the end. I don't see how I could have communicated in another way that I misunderstood, except perhaps by PM'ing her about it rather than doing it publicly. I should probably have said something like "Wow, this seems subbier-than-thou, is that how you meant it?" Because it seemed to me like it was, I was more concerned by an apparent change of behavior from Catalina (which I mentioned outright) than by the fact that what she said was or was not subbier-than-thou. I thought it was because I misunderstood. So because I thought it was, I responded with more focus on who it was coming from rather than what was said.

Catalina, I appreciate the time you took to explain yourself to me. I sometimes follow my first instinct without evaluating whether or not it was correct, and I am grateful that you explained yourself even after I suggested a flaw in your original statement.

I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sorry it came off that way.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina, I appreciate the time you took to explain yourself to me. I sometimes follow my first instinct without evaluating whether or not it was correct, and I am grateful that you explained yourself even after I suggested a flaw in your original statement.

I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sorry it came off that way.

No apology necessary...we all go through this from time to time in this context and no amount of deciding not to get caught again, we do even when we don't mean to be.

Catalina