|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Ever heard of using a safe word for vanilla sex? (12/8/2009 11:57:46 AM)
|
I don't think it's strange they had a safe word. I find it interesting the way the story is written. Most people would not consider choking and face slapping as "sexual relations." The story is writing around the implicit bdsm activity.
As for why she didn't use the safe word, I think it would be hard to talk when you're being choked.
Of course that article isn't telling all sides of the story. I just find it interesting to imagine what a jury would do with this story. Or imagine what the affirmative defense instruction would look like. Consent is a defense. How would consent be defined for a jury? Would choosing a safe word mean "anything goes" until the safe word is used?
[/quote]
I think that they are only discussing the "relations" that pertain to the injury. They may feel it makes better press. Personally, I think running the story saying that they engaged in breath play and face slapping during sex would be better press.
This leaves questions. There is no mention that they ever had sex, but he didn't leave until the next day. They say they drank "some" of the wine, not all and there is no mention of what time the battery allegedly occurred. A normal size bottle of wine will barely pour 4 glasses, so two bottle is around 8 glasses. If they didn't drink all the wine, one could assume that they had 3 glasses each. That does not typically result in a loss of consciousness. It does happen, however, if there was something in the wine or some other drugs involved.
Yes, Lucienne is an affirmative defense, but one can not consent to a battery so it isn't much of a defense. They can certainly assert consent as part of their defense, but then experts in BDSM play will need to be called to discuss how consent works within that context. Good luck with that one. Not that they couldn't find an expert, it wouldn't be that difficult. But this guy's political career is already over from this, I doubt that he will attempt to do damage control by claiming consent and providing enough expert testimony to explain how that consent works. Even if he did, then the prosecution will make the argument that there was no consent and if there was consent, when she lost consciousness he sould have known to stop, not to mention that the wine created diminished capacity which prevented her from consenting.
A large number of "vanillas" get the concept of kinky sex and will understand that breathplay can be deemed enjoyable. The face slapping they will find harder to swallow. I think we all remember the Chambers case way back when, so people are well aware of how breathplay is supposed to enhance a sexual experience. A jury wouldn't find that far fetched.
|
|
|
|
