The Jovanovich Case in New York

[BBD]

Hey that's not all of the opinion. I cut out all the legal mumbo jumbo. That's just the facts, the evidentiary basis. You want to see the whole opinion? It will have your head spinning. It was very poorly written. Go figure.

A poorly written opinion? You must be joking!

 

[gomeade]

Is it just the vocabulary . . . . ?

I have to confess, public scorn be damned, lawyers turn me on, and Lavender, with her talk of "sexual equitability," redaction, and discovery strikes me as an attorney. Whatever your true profession, Lavender, I like your style even if I'm uncertain about your true perspective on this issue.

 

[cymbidia]

Originally posted by RawHumor 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.

I think that most people going into BDSM relationships are far more aware of the potential for misunderstandings that could lead to injury than are nilla folks out to find a new sexual relationship. I have no hard data on which to base my statement, only a lifetime of real time BDSM, the last 10 years of which was spent watching the lifestyle bloom riotously because of the access to it via the net.

BDSM'ers are more careful about beginning new relationships than are nillas. That sounds arrogant, perhaps, but i believe it's true nonetheless.

Some people might play kinky tie-me-up games but that's not BDSM. Some people might say they're BDSM but if they don't adhere to SSC conventions, then they're not what we recognize as BDSM.

Don't believe the stereotypes. Don't further the ignorance. Kinky sex is just kinky sex: it's not BDSM just because someone uses a blindfold and handcuffs. Real BDSM is a headspace, a way of approaching one's life and obligations, and a committment to being safe sane and consensual (SSC) in all one's sexual activities, and often far beyond just one's sexual activities, too.

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.

I've neverknown anyone who was interesed in any real way in anything close to snuff play. That wouldn't be legal, wouldn't be moral, wouldn't be ethical, and would be a hideously perverted kind of sexuality if that's what they were using it for.

3. The problem comes with the first word: define "Know". Thus my answer to your #1.

And mine to you.

When beginning a BDSM relationship, we spend a long long long long time talking to each other about everythingunder the sun before we go off for that first session.

4. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are those like safe words?

No. They're not. Look for a recent post by perky here in this forum for lots of info on safe calls.

5. Excellent idea! And very erotic too!

Uh huh. That's what it's all about, right?

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.

No, it's not. And in fact, in real BDSM, it happens far less than with nilla folks and their all-too-heated rush into sexuality before they know what each other wants and neds and dreams about and fears and wishes for and fantasizes about and all that. We talk about that stuff - first.

 

[lavender]

 

[lavender]

 

[WriterDom]

And cymbidia, I still get upset when you broadly sweep over the sexual discussion between 'nillas. It sets a terrible double standard that I will continue to fight. I am 'nilla in comparison to you. I am not 'nilla in comparison with many. But, I don't think broad generalizations about those who are nilla are any less offensive than stereotypes and generalizations about those who prefer a BDSM lifestyle or BDSM play.
[/B]

I think what cym is trying to say is that in the bdsm family there is informal training, and sometime actual classroom stuff in some of the groups, on safer ways to meet strangers from the Internet, or another mode of meeting, that isn't shared as much on the outside. While a lot of it is just plain common sense, you wouldn't believe some of the chances nillas took with me before I changed paths. You never see that type of behavior in an experienced submissive, and rarely do you see green subs acting irresponsible if they've spent any time learning about what they are getting into.

 

[CarolineOh]

Lavender, thank you for posting this. It's a lot to digest.
Just a thought on the issue of consent, that I'd appreciate your take on: Consent to sex, bdsm play, what have you, can only be given by a person who is "in their right mind", correct? Doesn't this create the very real possibility that in a court of law, bdsm players may be unable to claim consent as a defense, since it is feasible that the court may not consider someone who enjoys being whipped or beaten to be in their right mind?

 

[lavender]

 

[petrel]

Is this to read and pondor or to give opinions? if the latter than here goes:

1 Yes I think it was wrong for the clearly consensual e-mails to have been partly censored.
2 I think the whole relationship was screwy
3 screwy does not always equal BDSM
4 I don't think it was necesarily rape but then I don't have the full facts, and I am very unlikely to ever have them.
5 I doubt alot of her testimony but I don't doubt that she may well have gotten in over her head.
6 Its a real difficult call to make but then I don't think that is what you are asking Lavender - correct me if I am wrong but you are asking if we think that e-mails and other evidence should have been censored under the 'thingy' act (can't remember the exact name)
to answer that - NO

 

[lavender]

 

[CarolineOh]

Thank you, Lavender.
I attended a discussion recently about legal issues in bdsm, and that is an issue that was raised. There were anecdotes related, and of course, I can't cite cases or verify facts, in which dominants were prosecuted when doctors or other third parties saw bruises or other marks on their partners, and in these cases, supposedly, the submissive partner's statements that they had consented to the activities were disallowed because the courts ruled they would not consent to their own "abuse" unless they were psychologicaly coerced.
As I said, these cases are nothing I can verify, they may be urban legends.
Again, thanks for you reply.

 

[cymbidia]

Lavy, thank you most sincerely for posting this great hunk o' controversary here, and then having the patented lavy-balls to stick around to explein and discuss it.

I think a lot of people who are exploring their sexuality, especially at a young age, like this young college woman, enter into propositions with extreme naivete. I think this is something that we cannot and should not deny.

The possibility for rape is inherent in any dating situation. It is only exacerbated in a situation with someone you meet from online. This doesn't matter what the sexual proclivities of the people involved are. That is only ancillary to the proposition of meeting someone with whom you have shared any type of online communication.

I couldn't agree more feverently and still be able to sit here and type words into my computer because i'd be spinning in circles or something.

As in most social situations, in online correspondences, most people put forward their best face. They misrepresent thmeselves in minor or major ways. They claim knowledge they don't have. They lie outright.

It's straightforwardly stupid for anyone at all to allow themselves to be put into an isolated situation with someone s/he has only gotten to know via online means. Flat out: such a move is dangerous.

I think we've come a long way since this ugly incident took place in 1996 in terms of our awareness of predators out there utilizing the net as a stalking ground. I can't imagine too many of us, young or old, are so blindly stupid these days as to go private with someone s/he's just met from the net, though i know it happens. It is, i think, a thing that happens with far less regularity now then it did seven or eight years ago when the net was still something relatively new. I hope that's true, anyway.

And cymbidia, I still get upset when you broadly sweep over the sexual discussion between 'nillas. It sets a terrible double standard that I will continue to fight. I am 'nilla in comparison to you. I am not 'nilla in comparison with many. But, I don't think broad generalizations about those who are nilla are any less offensive than stereotypes and generalizations about those who prefer a BDSM lifestyle or BDSM play.

Lavy, i respect you and admire you. You and i have had at least one bloody knock-down brawl over the word "nilla" and i've cut my use of it outside the confines of this forum to virtually nothing because you were right in your protestations about my using it out there.

Here, though, it's part of our shared culture. Here we're BDSM'ers and we use that word because it's one of our words, a little piece of who we are, a bit of our shared humanity.

In this forum, i will continue to use the word "nilla" because it's appropriate to use a perfectly good word that's been in use by people like me for much longer than the net has been around.

Again, and we've been over this many times before, this word is not one that's intended to cause you or anyone else any kinda pain. We don't use it as a value judgement. It's simply and only a shorthand descriptor for people that do not share our need for our BDSM sexuality. The ue of the word doesn't discriminate between people who talk alot to thier partner and those who do not. It doesn't have much of anything to do with much of anyone except that it's a convienently placeholder when we're struggling to make sense of our actions and needs and desires in light of what non-BDSM society considers "normal" and "okay".

Lavy, you're a marvelous woman. You're strong and centered and a voice for inclusion and tolerance and fairness. In this one matter, though, in this one place, you're wrong.

 

[lavender]

 

[SpectreT]

Lavy, thank you most sincerely for posting this great hunk o' controversary here, and then having the patented lavy-balls to stick around to explein and discuss it.

Agreed.

It's straightforwardly stupid for anyone at all to allow themselves to be put into an isolated situation with someone s/he has only gotten to know via online means. Flat out: such a move is dangerous.

I think we've come a long way since this ugly incident took place in 1996 in terms of our awareness of predators out there utilizing the net as a stalking ground. I can't imagine too many of us, young or old, are so blindly stupid these days as to go private with someone s/he's just met from the net, though i know it happens. It is, i think, a thing that happens with far less regularity now then it did seven or eight years ago when the net was still something relatively new. I hope that's true, anyway.

Agreed, again.

About "nilla": I think I might have accidentally "outed" myself recently with that one in a talk I had with friends. Thankfully, I didn't catch the kind of crap I expected to.

About "Safe Calls": I'll try to summarize. They're a check-in. Pick someone you trust, tell them where you're going, and with who, and a time you'll call them, or a time to call you if you've got a cel phone, to check in on your health and safety. Did I miss any bases?

This case, hopefully, can't happen again. However, I'm too much of a pessimist to believe that.

Also, fantasy is not reality; and especially with BDSM, it's easy for one's fantasies to outstrip what one is prepared to experience in reality.

Safety, Sanity, and Consensuality are the heart of this case, and the first two were definitely chucked out the window. Not being able to get through that opinion (I'm being lazy; legal obfuscations rarely bother me), I cannot speak to the third. I can ony say I'm saddened by the possible impact of such events, especially if repeated, on the online BDSM community, whatever conventions of precaution we choose to take.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be fulla shit.

 

[BBD]

Regarding the "in their right mind" question you present, I believe the term used is competent to consent. This standard of competency is hard to disprove. If they were incompetent to consent that would mean they were either drunk, drugged, mentally challenged, etc. I do not think that those who enjoy kinkier sex play are incompetent to consent. I'm not sure any court would rule in such a manner. But, who knows?

I've observed a discussion on another board about this one. The issue there was whether a person in subspace, or whatever you want to call it, would be able to give consent any more than a person who was intoxicated. It's an interesting argument, that the effects are somewhat the same. I suppose it depends on how you view it.

Just something else to consider...I don't really have anything more than random thoughts on it.

 

[pierced_boy]

Um WHAT

.

 

[CarolineOh]

pierced boy, I didn't read the level of contention into this thread that you have, I think it is a good discussion, in which disagreements on side issues have been addressed without rancor.
I don't believe tht cym was saying she is unable to trust anyone, or that she feels others should not grant trust, but that it is foolish to automatically assume the trustworthiness of others. Look at the case under examination,and her point is well made.

 

[BBD]

Hmm...didn't seem all that bad to me either. *shrugs*

The 'nilla versus non-'nilla disagreement isn't really a focal point here, I don't think. It's just one of the many things that comes up in discussions of this sort.

 

[lavender]

 

[cymbidia]

Simmer down, guys. All is well.

Lavy is a friend to us. I jumped too quickly on the barest possibility of an itchy spot between her and me with regard to the word "nilla" being of contention. I did that because of our past, mine and lavy's. Our past. Not yours, not what she was offering us here and now, but a past in which she and went at it in a battle that raged for quite a while, as time is measured here, and drew blood from its combatants in true take-no-prisioners style - and this simple little word was the spark.

That's my issue. She didn't bring it here. I was hypervigilent on the subject - and it was wrong of me to be so.

Any questions on that one?


Next issue: Am i unable to trust? Where is my tolerance, my consistency? Am i damaged? Is everyone a liar?

Well. Gee. Hmmm.

Ask around a little bit H. I think i'm at least as trustworthy as most, both here and in my everyday affairs, and i know i'm more trusting than many. I believe people are telling me the truth until it's been proven that i'm foolish to follow such a course, and to the core of my soul, i believe that most people are good. I'm at least as tolerant as anyone here and way moreso than almost everyone i know in my everyday life. I might be damaged; i think that depends on how one assesses damage. If for instance, you have a cane in your hand and want to take a whack at my ass with it, then yes - hell yes! - i'm damaged.

I feel kinda... taken aback, H, and a little bit hurt that you would come out like that at me. Why?

 

[pierced_boy]

Mixed

.

 

[pierced_boy]

Phew

.

 

[SpectreT]

Near as I can tell, and this is just my own pesonal view from Syracuse, The overall online "BDSM society" is mainly egalitarian; in RL you've got to make your bones. Another side remark, unrelated to the case (one of these days, I'll get bored and read that whole opinion), was made about kinky sex not being BDSM. That one kinda stung a little over here, made me feel like a poseur. I guess a case can be made for the idea that I'm not serious enough, since I've...

Nope.

Not going to digress that far. I'll address it in the proper places.

But my own remarks from the previous page were mostly pertinent, or in answer to questions I read that I happened to know the answer to. If that detracted from the thread, I apologise.

Tom.

 

[cymbidia]

is this what people are feeling bad about?

kinky tie-me-up games but that's not BDSM.
<snip>
Kinky sex is just kinky sex: it's not BDSM just because someone uses a blindfold and handcuffs.
<snip>
in real BDSM

 

[cymbidia]

because this is where those words came from...

Some people might play kinky tie-me-up games but that's not BDSM. Some people might say they're BDSM but if they don't adhere to SSC conventions, then they're not what we recognize as BDSM.
<snip>
Kinky sex is just kinky sex: it's not BDSM just because someone uses a blindfold and handcuffs. Real BDSM is a headspace, a way of approaching one's life and obligations, and a committment to being safe sane and consensual (SSC) in all one's sexual activities, and often far beyond just one's sexual activities, too.
<snip>
And in fact, in real BDSM, it happens far less than with nilla folks and their all-too-heated rush into sexuality before they know what each other wants and neds and dreams about and fears and wishes for and fantasizes about and all that. We talk about that stuff - first.