View Full Version : In the news...
BdsmVirgin
05-02-2006, 01:44 PM
hey guys.. i dont know if anyone else has posted this somewhere, or even if it belongs here... but what do you guys think of this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0501061contract1.html
There's been all this buzz around it.. and i thought it'd be interesting to see wh at you guys think..
I mean... the woman signed it, no?
subdude05
05-02-2006, 04:44 PM
The contract sounds reasonably sound, and fair, tho there is no end/renew date, but other than that sounds reasonably good, if my mistress asked me to sighn it i would not have a problem. To be fair she shouldnt have signed it, unless she was forced to, which is a different matter but, at the end of the day she should have known what she was getting into before signing it.
Some people
orchid
05-02-2006, 04:52 PM
i have to agree. provided that she was not forced, if she did not intend to follow through then she should not have signed it.
BdsmVirgin
05-03-2006, 09:12 AM
that's exactly what i thought. how can they consider it spouse abuse?
subdude05
05-03-2006, 09:21 AM
Well you've got to remember some americans (which i assume they are) have tryed suing Macdonalds for making them obease, it looks like another example of someone trying to get money but dont want to try too hard, just a thought tho
BdsmVirgin
05-03-2006, 10:48 AM
well it seems that way.
Ozme52
05-03-2006, 01:27 PM
Well, it's just a divorce. Like any marriage, they grew apart. And like many divorces, this one is not going to be amicable. So they're pulling out all the stops and using any ammo available to them.
It made the news because of the bdsm aspect. Makes it look, to mainstream america like he's a real bastard. To us within the forum, we see it as a concensual act and most of us probably condem her for using the contract against him.
I'm not going to judge who did what to whom, we're only seeing one side of the story. The true reasons they're separating probably have nothing to do with the contract.
Ayla Silver
05-03-2006, 01:52 PM
I agree with all of you.
We can't make a good judegment on either of them, however, based solely on the information given. There's a lot of factors to the story. Certainly he would have been at fault if he forced her to sign it, but other than that...the contract seemed fair to me. To the outside world...heh, a different story.
whippedcream
05-03-2006, 08:36 PM
Actually, I do have a problem with the contract. There are some responsabilities for the Master laid out, but I didn't see a provision for the dissolution of the contract if he fails to fulfill them. The contract says it's valid forever unless the Master wants out...but what if the slave wanted out? If the relationship had ceased to be healthy for her for some reason, physical or mental or whatever, according to the contract she had no recourse. I would not sign a contract like that.
-whippedcream
Ozme52
05-03-2006, 09:20 PM
Actually, I do have a problem with the contract. There are some responsabilities for the Master laid out, but I didn't see a provision for the dissolution of the contract if he fails to fulfill them. The contract says it's valid forever unless the Master wants out...but what if the slave wanted out? If the relationship had ceased to be healthy for her for some reason, physical or mental or whatever, according to the contract she had no recourse. I would not sign a contract like that.
-whippedcream
An excellent point... and perhaps the reason'd'divorce.... LOL
orchid
05-04-2006, 07:26 AM
great pick up whippedcream and i agree with you - there should always be a way out for both parties. i would expect, as Oz pointed out, that this is simply a divorce turned ugly and now something that was once sacred, is being used as ammunition. it's just sad.
I only wish Kramer vs Kramer had this sort of plot twist.
learningtopleez
05-04-2006, 03:49 PM
If you click on the first reported line that is underlined in the story, you get more background. Seems these two have had problems before they ever met, then he lied to her about stuff, when they met, but she started seeing him anyway! And he filed for divorce first! I'm not sure how much of what she says is true, but it seems to me, she just wants some money, cause he wanted the divorce first. Then again...:shithappe
Just my 2 cents!
BdsmVirgin
05-04-2006, 04:22 PM
hmm i agree with the point you made on her not being able to cancel contract when she wanted to..
Ayla Silver
05-05-2006, 01:13 PM
Me too.
One question: How could he force her to sign it, as she stated, and keep her a slave without her agreement? If she really was in danger, she could have said something while in public, unless she was kept imprisoned 24/7. And she wasn't, because the contract specified that she would call him "Kevin" while in public....which meant that he intended for her to be among others at some point or time.
Perhaps I missed something....
BdsmVirgin
05-05-2006, 02:13 PM
hmm or perhaps the wife is a bit messed in the head.
Seren
05-06-2006, 12:06 AM
was it actually signed? If you look, all the way where the signatures should be the two lines are left blank...course i am tired so i could have missed it
BdsmVirgin
05-06-2006, 01:01 PM
hmm yeah i dont think its signed. Then why is she complaining?
vistana
05-06-2006, 11:21 PM
I saw this a while ago, but don't actually recall anyone being able to say for sure whether she signed it or not, so I assume she didn't.
Ayla Silver
05-08-2006, 01:00 PM
If you click on the "First Reported" link, it takes you to a site with more info on the case. I quote,
"The wife of a prominent Hudson-area businessman is suing him for $60 million, alleging he forced her to sign an agreement to be his sex slave, hid assets from her..."
But then, on the original site, it says, "...The six-page unsigned pact...."
Confusing, isn't it?
In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing how the case turns out. Should be interesting.
fantassy
05-08-2006, 01:34 PM
Signed or unsigned that agreement will play bigtime in wife's favor to the jury. I'd be happy to represent her. Any dirt he digs on wife - explained away with "he made me do it" which jury will believe because of the agreement. Husband hid away assets - jury will believe he had complete control.
fantassy
Ayla Silver
05-10-2006, 01:50 PM
Definitely.
I recently heard a similar story from one of my vanilla friends. Apparently, a woman was spanked at work during a "team-building game." Now, that sounds damn lucky to me, but apparently she wasn't quite happy with it. She sued the company and won a few million dollars. The judge and jury went overboard - even my vanilla friends agreed with that.
I wonder if the same will happen here.
Ozme52
05-10-2006, 09:28 PM
Yet that, in my mind, is totally different. One is between a husband and wife, presumably a private affair... (until, of course, a divorce. LOL)
The other is a place of work... where physical interactions within the workplace are constrained by some very well defined laws... and here you have the company not merely condoning a sexually-charged activity, but authorizing it. Huge no-no.
A clear message from the jury... and an appropriate one.
Ayla Silver
05-11-2006, 01:29 PM
That's a good point. And with that post, I decided to look up the story to see the specifics - I couldn't help myself.
Apparently, though, the woman who had been spanked had attempted to sue another company previously for the same reason. I suppose it could be a coincidence.
The compay said that the woman and others had agreed to take part. The fact that she had endured the same treatment two times before without complaint gives a little credit to that statement.
I don't think that there's that much difference between the two cases. Both deal with the question of abuse and both accused parties stated that the activity was consensual. While there is a change in settings, the main ideas remain the same.
What the company did was wrong, but I doubt the jury should have rewarded the victim the amount that they did. It allows her to "manipulate the system".
fantassy
05-11-2006, 05:09 PM
I don't think that there's that much difference between the two cases. Both deal with the question of abuse and both accused parties stated that the activity was consensual. While there is a change in settings, the main ideas remain the same.
What the company did was wrong, but I doubt the jury should have rewarded the victim the amount that they did. It allows her to "manipulate the system".
But the jury wasn't rewarding the victim, they were punishing the company for doing something so stupid. Also, the parties in the two situations were in what we call disparate bargaining positions. In legal land, husband and wife start in equal bargaining positions, so we can accept that a wife's consent to a spanking was freely given. An employee at a retreat is not in an equal bargaining position with the employer. There is all sorts of subtle pressure on the employee to comply with the employer's request, so there are some things we simply should not allow an employee to consent to either at all or without making sure all sorts of safeguards are in place. I have to agree with Oz that the two cases are entirely different.
fantassy
I'm tellin' ya - Oz knows all.
Ozme52
05-11-2006, 10:32 PM
But the jury wasn't rewarding the victim, they were punishing the company for doing something so stupid. Also, the parties in the two situations were in what we call disparate bargaining positions. In legal land, husband and wife start in equal bargaining positions, so we can accept that a wife's consent to a spanking was freely given. An employee at a retreat is not in an equal bargaining position with the employer. There is all sorts of subtle pressure on the employee to comply with the employer's request, so there are some things we simply should not allow an employee to consent to either at all or without making sure all sorts of safeguards are in place. I have to agree with Oz that the two cases are entirely different.
fantassy
I'm tellin' ya - Oz knows all.
One gains a lot of experience over time. LOL. In this case, I must admit, I used to Dom.... er... supervise a department of 90+ staff members... "all" computer programmers. So I've taken a number of "employment law for managers" classes.
Ozme52
05-11-2006, 10:33 PM
..
Ayla Silver
05-12-2006, 01:52 PM
Lol! Agh, two against one! My courage fails me.
You guys are probably right. :D I know the cases are quite different. But I still think the two cases share at least the smallest of similarities. Just because there are many differences doesn't mean there aren't any related ideas at all.
His_pita
05-12-2006, 02:30 PM
I will be interested in how the contract case turns out too. I think that is the most pathetic contract I have ever read and because I think that, I hope she gets everything she wants. I have a contract that list what my Dom will do for me. I didn't read anything that this so called "master" would do for his slave. In my opinion he is nothing but a wannabe and has no true understanding of being a dominate.
I'm glad that woman won the spanking case too. What kind of dumbass company spanks their employees to keep them motivated. The stupidity alone is cause for them to lose millions.