The Jovanovich Case in New York
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
RawHumor
Creepers Gotta Creep
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2002
- Posts
- 57,560
lavender said:
I think I know what it is, but, as is so often the case in your threads, I must proclaim my ignorance.
(and imagine how high my hopes got when I saw that Lavy had posted to the BDSM forum... thoughts of you wearing a collar, on your knees passed through my head)
RawHumor
Creepers Gotta Creep
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2002
- Posts
- 57,560
Re: Re: Re: The Jovanovich Case in New York
Did I at LEAST make you crack a smile? Or a LITTLE chuckle?
lavender said:I keep my sexual preferences, other than the basics, under lock and key. I think most people at the site would be quite surprised as to what they actually are.
Did I at LEAST make you crack a smile? Or a LITTLE chuckle?
When the taboo becomes real . . .
The case makes me very sad for the human condition, but I don't think that the BDSM context adds much to the equation. Using the Internet as a partner-search engine for any sexual lifestyle is fraught with peril. The internet might bring two people together, but those at risk, particularly many women, must take care to follow their normal patterns toward intimacy after meeting rather than assuming that, because of the internet "foreplay," they can leap into a higher degree of intimacy relatively quickly. That's not to suggest that women who fail to do so deserve to be violated; I am simply suggesting that they run greater risks of discovering themselves in such situations when they fail to take the precautions they would take when they have a more traditional face-to-face encounter. That being said, the only thing that the BDSM aspect adds to the case for me is the blurring of consent. Although the fascination with non-consensual S/M is a bit extreme here, in many BDSM fantasies there is an element of "pretend resistance." Active participants in the BDSM lifestyle use safe-words for these precise reasons, and the need for trust and respect for the invocation of such words is another point illustrated by the case.
The case makes me very sad for the human condition, but I don't think that the BDSM context adds much to the equation. Using the Internet as a partner-search engine for any sexual lifestyle is fraught with peril. The internet might bring two people together, but those at risk, particularly many women, must take care to follow their normal patterns toward intimacy after meeting rather than assuming that, because of the internet "foreplay," they can leap into a higher degree of intimacy relatively quickly. That's not to suggest that women who fail to do so deserve to be violated; I am simply suggesting that they run greater risks of discovering themselves in such situations when they fail to take the precautions they would take when they have a more traditional face-to-face encounter. That being said, the only thing that the BDSM aspect adds to the case for me is the blurring of consent. Although the fascination with non-consensual S/M is a bit extreme here, in many BDSM fantasies there is an element of "pretend resistance." Active participants in the BDSM lifestyle use safe-words for these precise reasons, and the need for trust and respect for the invocation of such words is another point illustrated by the case.
RawHumor
Creepers Gotta Creep
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2002
- Posts
- 57,560
But he can claim (ignorantly claim) that he thought she wanted this sort of thing.
The point being to know what you're getting into with any RL encounter, and to always have a way out. Generally, women should always bring a friend to a first-time encounter, especially if the exchanges involved extreme sadomasochistic activities.
The point being to know what you're getting into with any RL encounter, and to always have a way out. Generally, women should always bring a friend to a first-time encounter, especially if the exchanges involved extreme sadomasochistic activities.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
Lavy, it would help a lot for all of us if you would/could please break your great big chunk of text intoa pithy precis of the salient facts of this case.
For my part, i have this to say:
1. This case is over and has been over for a long time. The initial conviction of rape was overturned and the charges dismissed.
2. This is not about BDSM except peripherally. It's about rape, or the charge or rape. It's about someone getting into a situation before she was ready to be there and then getting scared when stuff started happening. It's about playing safely and not, as you mom told you, talking to strangers.
3. Here's a letter about this case that was printed in the NY Post on Monday April 27th, 1998, under the (terrible!!!) headline of "Consenting Perverts - Good, Clean Fun!"
April 21, 1998
Dear Editor,
Judge Wetzel instructed the jury of the Jovanovic trial that consent is not a defense for assault. Yet if consent is given, how can it be assault? In this case, the alleged assault included candlewax, biting, and the use of a baton. These activities are often included in consensual sex games. If the woman consented to these activities, then it can't be assault. Only if she withdrew consent, by saying no or safeword, then those acts would become assault.
Would Judge Wetzel claim that "consent is not a defense for rape"? Of course not. If both parties consent, then it's sex, not rape. If both parties consent, then sexual activities that include candlewax and biting are also sex, not rape or assault.
The courts have already acknowledged that consent is considered a defense when it comes to contact sports. Consent is only denied as a defense in this case because it involves sexual behavior. It reveals how deeply sex is stigmatized in this country, when it's considered legally "assault" even if everyone involved is ready, willing and eager to have fun.
Susan Wright
Executive Director
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
~~~~~
This case was all about being ready to meet someone new and then taking the steps necessary to be safe when you finally decide to be alone with that person. It's about all the stuff we keep talking about here, over and over and over.
SSC. First, last, always: our relationships with each other have to be SSC.
For my part, i have this to say:
1. This case is over and has been over for a long time. The initial conviction of rape was overturned and the charges dismissed.
2. This is not about BDSM except peripherally. It's about rape, or the charge or rape. It's about someone getting into a situation before she was ready to be there and then getting scared when stuff started happening. It's about playing safely and not, as you mom told you, talking to strangers.
3. Here's a letter about this case that was printed in the NY Post on Monday April 27th, 1998, under the (terrible!!!) headline of "Consenting Perverts - Good, Clean Fun!"
April 21, 1998
Dear Editor,
Judge Wetzel instructed the jury of the Jovanovic trial that consent is not a defense for assault. Yet if consent is given, how can it be assault? In this case, the alleged assault included candlewax, biting, and the use of a baton. These activities are often included in consensual sex games. If the woman consented to these activities, then it can't be assault. Only if she withdrew consent, by saying no or safeword, then those acts would become assault.
Would Judge Wetzel claim that "consent is not a defense for rape"? Of course not. If both parties consent, then it's sex, not rape. If both parties consent, then sexual activities that include candlewax and biting are also sex, not rape or assault.
The courts have already acknowledged that consent is considered a defense when it comes to contact sports. Consent is only denied as a defense in this case because it involves sexual behavior. It reveals how deeply sex is stigmatized in this country, when it's considered legally "assault" even if everyone involved is ready, willing and eager to have fun.
Susan Wright
Executive Director
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
~~~~~
This case was all about being ready to meet someone new and then taking the steps necessary to be safe when you finally decide to be alone with that person. It's about all the stuff we keep talking about here, over and over and over.
SSC. First, last, always: our relationships with each other have to be SSC.
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: When the taboo becomes real . . .
I think there is an overreaction to this online business. Most women who are in peril are so from people they know up close and personal.
NOT online boogeymen! but real life boyfriends, lovers, and husbands.
Ebony
gomeade said:
I think there is an overreaction to this online business. Most women who are in peril are so from people they know up close and personal.
NOT online boogeymen! but real life boyfriends, lovers, and husbands.
Ebony
BBD
Former Hoosier Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,848
cym, that's the exact text taken from the court opinion itself. While I understand what you're saying about breaking it up, that's a hell of a job for anyone to do. I'd never even consider it. Most opininons aren't written to be easy to follow. That's why some people make a living going through them all the time.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
1. No one brings a friend to a session date.RawHumor said:
2. "Extreme" to you might not be "extreme" to me.
3. Know your partner before you go anywhere private with him/her.
4. Use safe calls.
5. Talk until you're ready to pop before you get naked.
6. Listen to any red flags that pop up in your mind.
Don't fucking run scared like little rabbits.
This is *your* sexuality.
YOURS.
Use it.
Work it.
Grow in it.
Have fun with it.
Most of the people out there are just like you and want just what you want.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
But...but... we have you now, BBD, and you're one of them! You could summarize this for all of us, couldn't you?BBD said:cym, that's the exact text taken from the court opinion itself. While I understand what you're saying about breaking it up, that's a hell of a job for anyone to do. I'd never even consider it. Most opininons aren't written to be easy to follow. That's why some people make a living going through them all the time.
There are some here who may be scared of this, even not knowing the details. Perhaps they'll act and overreact based on the barest suppositions of what it's all about, actions undertaken from fear of the unknown instead of from strength and knowledge.
We need to know stuff like this exists, but we need to disseminate it to a level that's useable by the general population, too. And let's just face this one squarely: no one's gonna read that monster of a legal thing lavy posted!
A few words on who did what to whom and then who claimed what about it and then how it all looked when the dust settled would be handy about now.
Lavy? BBD? Anyone?
RawHumor
Creepers Gotta Creep
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2002
- Posts
- 57,560
cymbidia said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do stand by my post.
1. I would hope that people would meat for lunch or coffee before jumping into a bdsm situation with someone. I know it doesn't always happen that way (or maybe not even usually), but safety has to come before sexual gratification.
2. I'd say anything involving "snuff" is extreme to anyone. How much more extreme can you get? Or maybe I don't wanna know the answer to that.
3. The problem comes with the first word: define "Know". Thus my answer to your #1.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are those like safe words?
5. Excellent idea! And very erotic too!
6. Another excellent idea, but online (and sometimes in RL) people tend to ignore red flags and see what they WANT to see... but that's not restricted to bdsm.
BBD
Former Hoosier Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,848
Shhhh...cymbidia said:
I'll make a deal with you. I'll take a look at it sometime during the week and see about summarizing, but I'm not making any promises. I would've initially cut and paste the entirety of the case without even taking out the citations and page numbers the way lavender did.
I think an ongoing discussion like we have now is an excellent way to disseminate the pertinent information. I'd say as a starting point at least.
