supreme court - Jezebel

posts about #supremecourt more →
SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Just(ice) Married
Supreme Court Takes On "Crush Videos"
Justice Sotomayor And The Supreme Court Shuffle
And Justice For All
Waiting For Obama
Justice Ginsburg Hospitalized After Falling Ill At Work
Stand, And Deliver
Mother's Day
Justice Sotomayor Will Wear A Judge Judy-ish Collar

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

J.D.Regent
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
I'm cringing already in anticipation of Scalia's questions. #soniasotomayor
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Pantra
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
As someone who does practice BDSM, stories like this turn my stomach. I haven't read all the details yet. But I will say that while I've met many people in the community who are really strong and ethical and cool, I've met others - dom/mes and subs, masters and slaves - who seem to me to have a screw loose. My philosophy in my own relationships is to err on the side of caution; this means that even if I'm with a sub who hasn't safeworded out of the scene and says they want more, but I judge that things are going too far, I stop. Immediately. I've been scorned for that and called vanilla, but the reality is that you're playing with fire, physically and psychologically. Too many "masters" buy into their own egocentric bullshit. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment Pantra was starred Pantra was unstarred

cate3710
10/15/09

@Pantra: That's interesting. I'm not involved in BDSM, but I have read about it and the dynamics involved a little. As another commenter (KaliMama) noted downthread, "it's the sub that holds all the power in the first place. If she stops the scene, the scene is stopped."

If, as a dom, you stop the scene before the sub says so, it seems like you would be taking away that power and making them into complete submissives - denying them any real control and saying you don't trust their judgment. #soniasotomayor
Reply

cate3710 was starred cate3710 was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
10/15/09

@Pantra: Agreed. It's not something I practice "casually" for that reason. I've been with my current boyfriend for 5 years and there are still expressed boundaries that he wouldn't dare cross. There's a great deal of trust involved and you really have to know a person before you play with them. #soniasotomayor
Reply

curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

Pantra
10/15/09

@cate3710: But I don't trust their judgement always if they're deep in sub space and dreamily going along with things that can cause major damage. I had one sub who had testicular damage from a scene with a domme (not me!) I've had another who would get so lost in their own ecstasy that they didn't realize I had drawn blood, even though that was a hard limit for them. Another had a flashback to childhood abuse and was crying over that, not crying because of what I was doing. It's a judgement call and I always let my partners know ahead of time that it's how I play. So they go into it knowing that.

And I just haven't found that the sub holds all the power in reality.... not in some really complex, entrenched dynamics. sometimes something like Stockholm Syndrome sets in or the sub feels so emotionally and financially dependent that they agree to actions they find violating. I don't do live-in type stuff but I've known people who have live-in naked slaves with no money or power of their own. It's pretty hard for a slave like that, if their masters get unethical, to reclaim their independence with a snap of their fingers.

Also as a domme, I have the right to say what I get involved in. Just because someone wants me to inflict a certain level of abuse doesn't mean that I'm obligated to provide it, if I feel the scene is making me uncomfortable. Consent goes both ways. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Pantra was starred Pantra was unstarred

Pantra
10/15/09

@curiousgeorgiana: That's what it comes down to for me.... knowing them. The depth and intensity of my scenes are incremental. It takes time to establish when someone is happy-suffering and sufferng-suffering. How quickly they go into sub space and how likely they are to remember and use their safeword if needed. If they have abuse issues, if they like to protest and struggle for fun and want me to push harder. If they like to skate along the edge of a hard limit or if just approaching one will make them freak out and not trust me. It's a delicate process and it's worth taking the time to do right for everyone involved. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Pantra was starred Pantra was unstarred

cate3710
10/15/09

@Pantra: Thanks for answering, that was really clear and makes a lot of sense. #soniasotomayor
Reply

cate3710 was starred cate3710 was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
10/15/09

@Pantra: Time is an important factor-- good point. You have to experiment with each other...cautiously. #soniasotomayor
Reply

curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

Eldritch
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Oh god, why do I keep reading SCOTUS as SCROTUM? What the hell is wrong with me? #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment Eldritch was starred Eldritch was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@Eldritch: I personally hate that acronym. I always just write the Court. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

Rare Affinity
10/15/09

@bluebears: It took me quite a while to work out what the acronym stood for too. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Rare Affinity was starred Rare Affinity was unstarred

morninggloria
10/15/09

@Eldritch: SCOTUS sounds like it should be the name for a beetle that eats dead bodies. Combination "scarab" and "locust." #soniasotomayor
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
The Court will not be deciding whether there was "consent." That isn't what the appeal is based on at all. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

RunawayPancake
10/15/09

@bluebears:
that's what i was wondering - do you know what the appellate issue is? #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment RunawayPancake was starred RunawayPancake was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@RunawayPancake: whether defendants constitutional rights were violated by an application of a law ex-post facto.

ETA: the lower court already ruled in defendants favor and remanded the case. I just read the opinion and I really don't think the government has a good case, I'm surprised the Court chose to hear this case, unless they have something new and interesting to say about ex-post facto. which, maybe.
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 10/15/09 3:12 PM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Ok, screw the legal basis for a second: I would be interested to read reactions of S&M practicioners that push this beyond "S&M is based on consent." Sure, it is, but I wonder - and I say, I wonder, not pronounce - about how S&M can deal with so-called gray areas - i.e. where someone consents because they believe themselves to be contractually obligated to under an S&M arrangement - when it retains such a binary, safeword approach to consent. #soniasotomayor
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@PilgrimSoul: right. how can any such contract be legally binding? If you and I contract that I will allow you to beat the shit out of me for 18 months for a monthly fee, and 2 month in I "breach" you don't have much of a claim since the activity was illegal to begin with.

I think this is just one of the risks you assume when you engage in S &M type activity.
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 10/15/09 3:11 PM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
10/15/09

@bluebears: Yeah my base assumption is that legally speaking this kind of contract is just plain unenforceable, for public policy reasons as well as the specific performance ones Lymed talks about below.

But I'm confused by how this kind of consent is "acceptable" for S&M purposes. And also, as a person who wants to reverse the consent burden onto the aggressor/dom, I don't know how comfortable I am with safe words anyway. Why should the onus be on the sub? #soniasotomayor
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@PilgrimSoul: Right. That whole sub culture leaves me scratching my head. Consenting adults and all that, but consent becomes so murky. Always. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

thePrototype
10/15/09

@bluebears: I know there is a lot of legal speak in your thread (which is above my head), but in regards to legal/illegal activity, can't we draw parallels in contact sports and how they manage to escape the legal definition of assault because of consent and prior knowledge of what is taking place? #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment thePrototype was starred thePrototype was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@thePrototype: to an extent yes. However I think that where sports differ is that each sport follows a well understood set of rules and expectations. Whereas a submissive/S &M type relationship can mean 100 different things to 100 different people. Which clouds the issue. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

Lymed
10/15/09

@bluebears: But most S&M relationships have rules and expectations between the individuals. It isn't a free for all. They require a substantial amount of trust though, because there is generally not a third party watching to make sure such rules are followed. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@Lymed: right between individuals. but rules in sports are like, universally understood. So in football a tackle is universally seen as not assault while a punch in the face is assault. I was just pointing out why I don't think the situations (contact sports and s & m) are really comparable in terms of contracting into illegal activities.
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 10/15/09 3:35 PM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

Lymed
10/15/09

@bluebears: Understood. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

seejanerun
10/15/09

@PilgrimSoul: I would really be interested in seeing this "employment contract". I can see the advantage of such a thing for liability purposes. Obviously there's all the photographic evidence of her in this role and it can be construed in all kinds of way and this is the employer's way of saying "yeah this was consensual, we're both adults, for serious" in case an outside party wants to call authorities or something to that effect.

However, for her role in this to be under such a thing is dubious as fuck. That's why I'd be interested in seeing this "contract". Is it just something that clears him of liability under very circumstances (not injury), or is it something with a standard non-compete clause, or is this some fucked up indentured servitude kind of shit? I think there's a lot up in the air.

I do understand though that if there are repercussions for the submissive of any kind, even standard ones like a non-compete clause, in this "employment contract" it's going into abuse territory. I would understand how a contract might protect both parties in such a situation (I mean maybe, I don't know enough about contract law) but repercussions for the sub in any kind of contract is going way too far.

I hope this isn't coming across as victim-blaming in any way, I think this whole situation has so much potential for abuse and it would be beneficial if the law provided some guidance on how to protect all parties. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment seejanerun was starred seejanerun was unstarred

wtfox?!
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Who else is looking forward to the breathtakingly insensitive remarks that are just bound to come out of Scalia and Thomas's mouths? I know I am! #soniasotomayor
Reply

wtfox?! was starred wtfox?! was unstarred

JessickerFletcher
10/15/09

@wtfox?!: Ugh. Don't get me started on Scalia. #soniasotomayor
Reply

JessickerFletcher was starred

Sputnik_Sweetheart
10/15/09

@wtfox?!: If by "looking forward" you mean sharpening knives in anticipation of having to stab my ears and eyes , then me! #soniasotomayor
Reply

Sputnik_Sweetheart was starred

ritualtheory
10/15/09

@wtfox?!: Yesss...that's why I'm looking at this case with a squint between my fingers. Then again, the prospect of listening to either of those bullying fuckbags discuss the legal intricacies of "knife play" is too gruesomely promising to ignore. #soniasotomayor
Reply

ritualtheory was starred ritualtheory was unstarred

Lymed
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
While she may have signed an employment contract, if she later changed her mind, he could not force her to perform to the contract. If somebody breaks an employment contract, courts never force the person to fulfill personal services aspects of a contract (meaning personally doing the job) because they consider it akin to slavery to force somebody to perform a personal service. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

ritualtheory
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Wow. Aside from what probably seems to most of us like a grotesque power trip to the nth degree, this brings up fascinating and extremely tricky questions about consent and responsibility. Of course it's entirely plausible that someone could willingly deign to be a "sex slave," could sign a contract to that effect, could even find it sexually and/or psychologically gratifying to be the submissive person in that power dynamic. But what if this individual has a history of being abused? What if s/he has a mental illness that interferes with her or his ability to negotiate such dynamics in a knowledgeable, agentive way? And so on, and so forth...I look forward (with trepidation) to the Court's responses. #soniasotomayor
Reply

ritualtheory was starred ritualtheory was unstarred

Where The Mild Things Are
10/15/09

@ritualtheory: Yeah - I feel like this is one of those situations that's almost impossible to comment on without knowing more details. I'd be interested to know what positions/thoughts the other women who worked for him have.

Also, I don't know much about S&M sex play, but actually carving someone's skin with a knife seems excessively extreme. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Lymed
10/15/09

@ritualtheory: I think this is very different from a typical S&M relationship because of the employment contract. It adds a different power dynamic. My understanding is that even the submissive person holds some power over the dominant person in an S&M relationship - even if that power is basically attraction. Of course, at the same time, we allow people to sign employment contracts where they go into a ring and get punched. Or where they are a stunt double putting themselves at great risk. Or even sign a contract to take experimental medication that can have adverse reactions. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

ritualtheory
10/15/09

@Lymed: Exactly. Maybe (in my dreams) this particular case will shake the foundations whereby it's usually presumed that just because a contract is signed, a situation is legitimate and reasonably equitable. At the very least, it's worth a thousand discussions... #soniasotomayor
Reply

ritualtheory was starred ritualtheory was unstarred

Kali Mama
10/15/09

@Lymed: Any decent S&M person will tell you it's the sub that holds all the power in the first place.

If she stops the scene, the scene is stopped. No contract will force her to participate further. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Kali Mama was starred Kali Mama was unstarred

boobookitt
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
I don't know what the legal issue here is or the ramifications of a decision either way. But what I do know is that I'm going to be hearing a lot of ignorant nonsense from Scalia. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Maritsa promoted this comment boobookitt was starred boobookitt was unstarred

Kivrin
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
Did anyone else see South Park last night? All I can think is, "Butters would never have treated his girls like this."

In all seriousness: I hope I never find myself in a situation where I need money bad enough to consider employment of this nature. (And dire economic straits = the only reason I can possibly think of that would make this gig sound like a good idea.)
Reply

Edited by Kivrin at 10/15/09 2:56 PM Kivrin was starred Kivrin was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

In reply to SCOTUS To Decide The Fate Of "S&M Svengali"
What is the legal issue? meaning, is it whether the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act applies? Is that the only issue?
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 10/15/09 2:50 PM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

activearchivist is lovely, in a moist, fluffy sort of way
10/15/09

@bluebears: I'd assume it is if you can apply a law that was made before the act was made illegal to a case after the law was created. [/convoluted sentence] #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment

Schrodinger's Cat
10/15/09

@bluebears: You would think this guy could be prosecuted under any number of assault/extortion/sex crime laws...

We didn't need to go all ex post facto to lock him up, did we? #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment Schrodinger's Cat was starred

bluebears
10/15/09

@activearchivist is a professional hippy: ex post facto. I just don't see why this is even being appealed farther up but I'm reading the decision. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

cait98
10/15/09

@bluebears: I think the issue is retroactive application of the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It's just more salacious because it's an S&M relationship, but my understanding is that lower courts have already decided that he went beyond what was consented to and that that's not on appeal. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment cait98 was starred cait98 was unstarred

JessickerFletcher
10/15/09

@activearchivist is a professional hippy: I hear ya. It's a convoluted sentence because ex-post facto law tends to be extremely complicated and difficult to interpret. #soniasotomayor
Reply

JessickerFletcher was starred

bluebears
10/15/09

@cait98: yeah this is solely an ex-post facto question. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

bluebears
10/15/09

@Schrodinger's Cat: well. maybe not if that was all they had. #soniasotomayor
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

activearchivist is lovely, in a moist, fluffy sort of way
10/15/09

@JessickerFletcher: This is why I prefer copyright law.

I'm glad I was at least understandable. #soniasotomayor
Reply

PinkSoxHat
10/15/09

In reply to Just(ice) Married
They do this pretty often. I learned from one of my law professors, a former Souter clerk, that it's a quick way to get into the NY Times Sunday Styles section. #soniasotomayor
Reply

PinkSoxHat was starred PinkSoxHat was unstarred

JessickerFletcher
10/15/09

In reply to Just(ice) Married
I just got a star! And in my fantasy world that means that Justice Sotomayor attended my coronation. Oh happy day! #soniasotomayor
Reply

JessickerFletcher was starred

Maritsa
10/15/09

In reply to Just(ice) Married
As soon as I read it, I thought "former clerk." A lot of judges do this, but it's extra cool when they've been elevated to the SCOTUS. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Maritsa was starred Maritsa was unstarred

Trulymadlyme
10/15/09

@Maritsa: It's incredibly common to have your former judge to conduct the marriage ceremony. I think roughly half of my friends who clerked had their judges do the ceremony for them, which is an odd perk of this job. [jezebel.com]
Reply

Edited by Trulymadlyme at 10/15/09 9:42 AM Trulymadlyme was starred Trulymadlyme was unstarred

Diziet_Sma
10/15/09

In reply to Just(ice) Married
This post just made me gag a little - I'm really really happy Sotomayor was appointed, but I'm not sure I can get behind this kind of breathless idolatry. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Diziet_Sma was starred Diziet_Sma was unstarred

babyruthless
10/15/09

@Diziet_Sma: I think it would be pretty amazing to be married by any SC justice, at least on principle. I mean, I've never heard of one doing it before. So unless I hated their politics, I'd be down. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Kivrin promoted this comment babyruthless was starred babyruthless was unstarred

thoughtthinker
10/15/09

@Diziet_Sma: I don't know that it's breathless idolatry so much as someone we've followed and have been interested in doing something neat and that neatness being noted, not even expounded upon. Simply noted. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Kivrin promoted this comment thoughtthinker was starred thoughtthinker was unstarred

Diziet_Sma
10/15/09

@babyruthless: @thoughtthinker: "Can you imagine looking up to utter I do and seeing the smiling face of Sonia Sotomayor?"

Yeah, I can imagine it. It would be nice. I think the fact that I was getting married would have slightly more significance for me, though. Sorry, but they've made her sound like Buddha. [jezebel.com]
Reply

Edited by Diziet_Sma at 10/15/09 10:04 AM Diziet_Sma was starred Diziet_Sma was unstarred

Intern Katy
10/15/09

@Diziet_Sma: Perhaps the fact that I don't want to get married makes me a little more excited about Sonia Sotomayor than the idea of getting hitched to some mysterious future fiance. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Intern Katy was starred Intern Katy was unstarred

theKP
10/15/09

@Intern Katy: I hear you. Getting to meet Justice Sotomayor is about the only thing that would convince me to get hitched. That and my partner needing health insurance. I'd much rather contemplate the former. #soniasotomayor
Reply

Diziet_Sma promoted this comment theKP was starred theKP was unstarred

CremeBruDont
10/15/09

@Diziet_Sma: I think all of the SCOTUS justice have presided over a wedding or two in their day - - - although, you're right, I guess the sentence "Imagine seeing a smiling Scalia look down upon you!" back in 2007 when he married one of his kid's professors wasn't written toooo many times #soniasotomayor
Reply

Diziet_Sma promoted this comment JessickerFletcher approved this comment CremeBruDont was starred CremeBruDont was unstarred

Diziet_Sma
10/15/09

@Intern Katy: That explains it. Fair enough. I try not to idolize someone I've never met. . . except Viggo. We all have our Achilles heel, I guess.
Reply

Edited by Diziet_Sma at 10/15/09 10:40 AM Diziet_Sma was starred Diziet_Sma was unstarred

Intern Katy
10/15/09

@Diziet_Sma: lol Viggo is a pretty excellent choice, but I'd wouldn't want him to officiate the ceremony... #soniasotomayor
Reply

Intern Katy was starred Intern Katy was unstarred

Diziet_Sma
10/15/09

@Intern Katy: I wouldn't need a ceremony; I'd settle for one night in a hotel bar somewhere. . . sometime. . . #soniasotomayor
Reply

Diziet_Sma was starred Diziet_Sma was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment