Posted on 01/30/2006 12:44:16 PM PST by SmithL
You might ask one of the Democrats who filibustered today.
Mr. Kerry, don't you get quite enough of this at home?
ok, now explain to me why she wasnt convicted!! chopping up the body and dumping it is worth a charge of some sort!!
Because (at least by my reading of the article) the only evidence that such a thing ever happened is the claim of some police investigators that she confessed to them. No written confession, no recorded confession, nor even any contemporaneous notes of the confession by the investigators in question.
Do you think that investigators' recollections of a confession should be admitted as evidence when not backed up by even contemporaneous notes regarding what the suspect supposedly said?
Mr. Kerry doesn't get anything at home, is my thinking.
ok, now explain to me why she wasnt convicted!! chopping up the body and dumping it is worth a charge of some sort!!
Because she knew somebody, really really well. Sombody with a lot of power.
I think what he gets at home is plenty of hot tongue and cold shoulder.
I don't know how to intepret the "hot tongue" but you're right about the cold shoulder.
Maybe he just doesn't need any "thing," seeing as how he's such a wuss.
Bumper Sticker seen on Volvo.
My boy friend is Slave of the Week
at Mistress Dominica's house of Submission!
"Hot tongue" = angry words.
kinda glad I missed the all-you-can-eat, mixed grill night special at that restaurant.
Isn't it amazing what MSG will do to a tough cut of meat?
Try the Szechuan Pork, it's AMAZINGLY tender tonight!
ok,,... I was thinking erotic for a minute there... Never mind.
What evidence is there that she in fact committed the crime?
I see your point. Seems like the police dropped the ball on this one big time.
This trial has been pure torture!
One second... let me take off my leather mask first.
That is so much better!
You asked why some people do this... frankly, and this may seem like a 'canned' response, but the attraction varies for each person within the BDSM lifestyle. The individual desires are as unique as the participants.
The bottom (no pun intended) line, in my own opinion, is that the power exchange between the participants creates and endorphine rush that cannot be easily explained.
The act of surrendering yourself to a trusted partner, placing yourself completely under another person's control, is very liberating to the psyche of the submissive. The submissive is free to 'let go' of all inhibitions, all stress. In this state, he or she is able to experience sensations that they would normally not have. The human mind has a powerful way of reacting to unusual stimuli, pumping endorphines into our bodies, elliciting a hormonal rush that many people crave.
In the case of a bondage scene, the submissive cannot escape directly, but that does not stop the mind and body from pumping out adrenline in response to the 'fight or flight' reflex.
From a Dominant's standpoint, the control over another person creates a similar rush within their mind and body. In my own opinion, this could go back to the stereotypic depiction of cavemen dragging their women off by the hair. The Dominant is in control, and it is within his or her power to use that power, that control, to fulfill whatever fantasy has been mutually agreed upon between the parties.
It is through this action, the fantasy, that the Dominant returns the power to the submissive.
It is a shared experience, and thereby a true power exchange.
Many people think that BDSM is just about 'kinky sex' and are probably wondering where the sex comes in.
It does not come in.
BDSM is not about sex.
That is something separate, and if people want to have sex and call it BDSM, that is their business, and in my own opinion, they can do what they want. It simply is not my concern.
My own comments about this case:
For the prosecution: The crime here seems to be the events that took place in disposing of this man's body, not the fact that he died during a bondage scene. This woman's actions are criminal, but only in this light, in my opinion.
For the defense: If this man were on a replica of a rack, he would have been laying down. His head would not have slumped forward from that position. And with his hands extended above his head, his arms would have held his head in place. So this attorney was merely engaging in theatrics with his hood event for the jury.
Chances are, that if the victim's hood zipper over his mouth were zipped, he was holding a ping-pong ball for safety. You are probably wondering why. If a person cannot talk, and therefore cannot say a 'safeword', there has to be a means of communication. A common signal is the ping-pong ball. When it drops, the Dominant stops immediately to determine what is wrong.
In this case, presuming that he held something similar as a signal device, he may have held on too long. She may have not realized his problem until it was already too late, and he had already passed away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.