Apparently in the state of Virginia, confessing to being a professional Domme means you're hunted down like a dog, even 6 years later.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1143758
WTF are "Crimes against nature"?
I found this sick and disturbing.
Printable View
Apparently in the state of Virginia, confessing to being a professional Domme means you're hunted down like a dog, even 6 years later.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1143758
WTF are "Crimes against nature"?
I found this sick and disturbing.
She's got some other crimes against her - prostitution and marijuana. That's really crummy though. Poor Domme.
I think I would need more to go on than the article told. It could be that the drug and prostitution are the more serious charges.
There wasn't any mention about what the crimes against nature consisted of. All that was said was that she was being charged for it as well as prostitution. They made no connection about the fact that she was a domme and the charges.
Maybe one or more of the police were old clients of hers and decided to put her in jail because she may have spanked one of them a little too hard. *smiles*
Um, I disagree. They said in the article they had searched her apartment and found bondage and sex toys, so apparently being a Dominatrix was a big deal.
And If I'm getting too political here, excuse me. Can someone explain to me who the victims are of her use of marijuana? Or of her being a prostitute? Is it possible to be a professional Dominatrix without being a prostitute?
And why being a prostitute with bondage equipment is more of a crime than just being a vanilla prostitute?
"Crimes against nature"? What's that exactly? Nk, you're right they didn't actually say that bondage was a crime against nature. But they didn't say what was either.
The whole thing just stinks to me of a morality lynch mob out to get someone who's different. Has nothing to do with crime IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevernick
I know here in the states just posessing Marijuana is illegal, but making it or being caught smoking it is worse. I'm not sure if she was a prostitute or not, but perhaps the madam of a prostitution buisness. It said she ran a "bawdy" house.
In a way, soliciting her services to a neighborhood man could be considered prostitution by some, even if it was for Domme services with no sex involved. It said that the complaints came from neighbors. Perhaps they were mistaken about her simply being a Professional Domme and thought she was a kinky prostitute instead.
And yes, I think it's possible to be a Professional Domme without being a prostitute, but I'm sure there is liscensing and such involved. I know there was an episode of CSI that dealt with a professional Domme and the business she ran. (One of my favorite episodes.) But it wasn't that she was commiting a crime by being a Professional Domme, but one of her girls ended up dead.
I do know that in some states Sex toys are illegal.. I think alabama is one .. not sure.
From wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature
Quote:
Crime against nature is a legal term used in published cases in the United States since 1814[1] and normally defined as a form of sexual behavior that is not considered to be natural and is seen as a punishable offense in several US states. In the broadest sense, a crime against nature could even include masturbation and unusual sexual positions, but these are not seen as such. Sexual practices that are often considered to be crimes against nature are anal sex, bestiality, homosexual acts, fellatio, cunnilingus and necrophilia. The term is sometimes also seen as a synonym for sodomy or buggery.[2]
Currently, the term crime against nature is still used in the statutes of and thus considered to be a crime in the following American states:
Idaho
Louisiana - R.S. 14:89
Michigan Human rights vs Kelly
Massachusetts (Massachusetts General Laws c.272, sec. 34)
North Carolina
Oklahoma (Same-sex only)
Virginia
"They said in the article they had searched her apartment and found bondage and sex toys, so apparently being a Dominatrix was a big deal."
The press loves details like this so what may be a big deal in the article may not be the crux of their case.
Thanks for the answers, all. I will be quiet now.
Okay, but for the record, nobody's telling you to be quiet. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Clevernick
Mm...dunno, seems like an intentionally vague and sensationalist report. It mentions details without actually tying them to anything at all, thus implying links -- a surefire technique of irresponsible journalists. Like reporting a murder suspect's home was searched and the police found an 'arsenal' of 'a dozen shotguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition"; it's not illegal, of course, but there's a clear note of criminalization.
I admit, however, I don't have nearly as much sympathy as you all seem to...this is the sort of person who gives our entire scene a bad name, who makes us all seem like freakish sex criminals.
Newspaper articles of this kind are not known for being stringent and logical about what the police were actually looking for, or what the crime was. On the other hand the Domme herself doesn't seem to have taken much care - if you're walking around and offering your new neighbours to be dominated and flogged for 275$ a session, then you're clearly asking for trouble.
There was a notorious case in Sweden two-three years back when a top-ranking military officer working close to the Executive Commander in Chief - one of the ten most important military people in the country -was seized for repeated rapes of his wife and for handling military papers in a careless and non-standard way (he had brought rough BDSM into the marital bedroom although his wife didn't want any of it; after the arrest she filed for divorce and the marriage broke up). He also admitted he'd made a number of visits to BDSM clubs in Sweden and abroad, having military papers on him, getting drunk and bragging about his high status .- now being into BDSM or visting clubs of ths kind is not illegal at all, but his careless way of doing this and his bragging put him at grave professional risk, so that was the main issue. Evidently the police - and military intelligence - had been tipped of about his interest in the BDSM/swinger scene, by his wife and others, and of course the tabloids jumped at the case, all the more because all the court action would be behind closed doors for reasons of National Security. He was credited with saying to his military questioners he'd enjoyed the thrill of carrying top secret files and microfilms on his person when he went to a swingers club, knowing he might be courting danger and thinking of what could happen if he was tortured and Dommed.
In time it turned out he really had been extremely careless with classified stuff, military plans and documents , even bringing them home and spreading them on the floor, and he didn't deny that he was interested in s/m. However, his s/m interests were not the crime he was taken in for, or tried for: the point was more he had exposed himself, and the things he knew, heavily to blackmail. By the way, a lot o material was cleared out from the (Swredish and English) Wikipedia articles about this guy, Mr. Tony Stigsson, for the sensible reason that details about his family and irrelevant stuff detailing his BDSM activities had been lifted over from the tabloids,and shouldn't be found on a serious encyclopaedia/information service.
If I really did not know, I would guess that "crimes against nature" was the same as unlawfully causing environmental harm. I believe it is not, but is some kind of description for sexual acts that some people find offensive.
Based on my current understanding of VA state law (which is actually minimal at best... lol.) It is possible to be a professional Dominatrix and NOT be a prostitute. The professional Dominatrix is a profession such as a hair stylist... they offer a service for an agreed upon price, etc. As long as she does not have actual physical intercourse (which would/could be open for each persons own interpretation) she is not a prostitute because no actual "sex" was involved. If she did have sex with someone, to stay within the letter of the law, she would need to not charge them or it would be considered prostitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevernick
My personal opinion on the article, if it is accurate... she wasn't discreet, which only added to her troubles. Bottom line though the article was written for the sensationalism of it. That is what annoys me the most... everything written on D/s is normally written for the sensationalism and to inflame people's dislike of what is different.... grrrrrrr.
One of the crappy things about living in Virginia is that any position other than the missionary position is considered taboo and can fall under the crimes against nature clause. But what they don't know can't hurt me...much.
We get the term "crimes against nature" from 12th and 13th century theology and logic (I'm so a history major).
Basically, the European thought at the time theorized that all things were in a state of ascension. Jesus had been born a mortal, transcended that and ascended to divinity; people worked through life to ascend in the afterlife to heaven; and so, in a corresponding, perfectly symmetrical world, was everything else (a nut became a tree, became lumber, became furniture, became firewood, became smoke and ascended to heaven, for instance). All things and all actions were working in accord with the divine precedent, godly will, nature -- what have you -- to create something better.
Except, of course, that some things didn't. Religion came in handy to explain this gap in logic, however -- those things that weren't creating something or moving towards perfection were evil, against the course of nature: unnatural.
Any form of sex other than strict penile-vaginal intercourse fell squarely into this category. Oral, anal, masturbatory or homosexual fun produced nothing, was a biological 'dead end' -- and so was against nature, and being against God, was a crime.
This sort of thinking is long past outdated in scientific thinking, but it served as a basis for several now-fundamental rulings (mostly in response to the Reformation) and thus has stayed with us, leading otherwise perfectly sane people to call gays "unnatural" with a straight face. (Okay, that's a bit of personal opinion there, but whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality I have yet to find anyone who can justify it as unnatural).
Clevernick I agree with your point though, we in the life at least here in the US are at risk. Every try to explain why the passenger in your car is handcuffed?
We all need to be carefull to both guard our participation in the life and live our life to higher standards of honor and respect then does the vanilla world.