50 replies to this topic

[malus_infantia]

Rape play is a totally sketchy area, and if I had a partner that wanted me to play the 'assailant' in such a fantasy, I don't think I could. Were someone to engage in those fantasies with me, they would of course be consensual. However, they are fantasies as they stand, and most of them remain firmly in the realm of the imaginal because they are on such sketchy moral ground as it is. I'd never expect a woman to put on a strap on and rape me, nor would am I likely to ask one to do that as it is a kind of impossible situation to put someone in ('pretend that you're doing something really horrible to me, and I'll pretend that you are, but really everything will be just fine'). But the idea of it is arousing to me, and it taps into a complex of emotions associated with my earliest sexual experiences.

And the thing about fetishes is that they are not really defensible, as they tend not to be generated from a conscious place, that is I didn't decide that I like wearing diapers and having my agency stripped away by a dominant partner, I didn't decide that I like to be sexually objectified as an expression of self-loathing. I can provide reasons, rationales, suspected histories and causes of my kinks, but those aren't defenses, those are narrative elements in the guise of defense.

I remain undecided on the matter of whether or not our fantasies are subject to moral assessment. On the one hand, since there is no actual action there is no consequence, therefore there is no real thing to be morally assessed. On the other hand, a lot of my fantasies for example perpetrate great harms upon myself by some imagined agent, and there is (based on some of the responses thus far) a clear moral intuition that there is something problematic about that.

All that aside, let's get the conversation back on the rails.

[abrera]

I wasn't aware of that. If I understand Abrera right, that there is no such thing as consent, and therefore no such thing as consenting adults, then I should maybe better not write any more about my unlawful hobbies. Actually, it might be better to vanish from this forum altogether; just imagine that some mummy puts a nappy on somebody, and then they get a rash and by some really unfortunate coincidence catch some MRSA, this mummy is now guilty.

Under British law, if a husband has sexual intercourse with his wife (also assuming that she consented, although inconsequentially), and the wife becomes pregnant, and then dies in childbirth, did he commit murder?

This really makes me want to run.

1, R v Brown was tried because they all filmed each other and passed it about. I still don't know who gave a copy to the police but if they'd never have known, there's have been no case. Being a member to an adult diaper fetish site is not illegal.

2, how is this mummy guilty? Where's the offence of some guy were to somehow catch MRSA?

3, No, not unless he killed the child himself... that seems most illogical.

Interestingly, if you have an incurable STD/STI and you know about it and don't inform your sexual partner. When they have it, that is an offence.

[wetman]

1, R v Brown was tried because they all filmed each other and passed it about. I still don't know who gave a copy to the police but if they'd never have known, there's have been no case. Being a member to an adult diaper fetish site is not illegal.

If my name is Fritzl and I shag my own daughter for 14 years in a cellar in Austria and the police never knew, then there is no case either.
This is not about getting away with it because you didn't get caught, this is about legal or not.

2, how is this mummy guilty? Where's the offence of some guy were to somehow catch MRSA?

The reason that this guy now needs dialysis for the rest of his life is, in a direct line, a consequence of the MRSA infection, his nappy rash, and in ultimo the lack of a suitable barrier cream that the professional mummy used. Even though he gave his consent (again, probably without effect) to her to put him into a nappy, he did not know at this point that it would almost kill him, and would have decided otherwise, had he only known before.

3, No, not unless he killed the child himself... that seems most illogical.

The child survived. I wasn't writing about the child. The mother dies. As a consequence of consensual (see above) sexual intercourse between married adults. There have been cases of rape in marriage. How does he prove that he didn't? If she suffered physically manifested complications due to the psychological stress of the unwanted pregnancy that he inflicted on her, and these complications directly or indirectly led to her death, then has he not, at least via proxy, killed her?

Interestingly, if you have an incurable STD/STI and you know about it and don't inform your sexual partner. When they have it, that is an offence.

My talking above, I totally agree.


I'm playing a bit the devil's advocate here. I did skim though the court case that you provided, as well as the appeal before the House of Lords, and the EU human rights thing.

What poodled me off was that bleeping Lord Thuminthebum said "yes, consent, blah, of course, the noble game of fisticuffs, yes, certainly also football... but NO".
Frimping middle age attitude that the serfs are not up to deciding anything, at least not if it's a question of decency.

We should not forget that this is the country that killed Alan Turing. And while it was not uncommon for aristocrats to wear their underwear not only visible, but also on the wrong part of the body, our dear lordships still decide what is acceptable and what's indecent (anyone remember the recent indecent images thing?).


OK, my rant is over. And yes, I know, if I don't like it, why don't I go and live somewhere else. I might, it wouldn't be the first time that I leave a country because I didn't agree with the government*.


*When you think about what the word 'government' really means, then it's no wonder that they behave like that, we're practically inviting them to 'parent' us. Public servants? I think not.

(looks up the property prices in France...)

[abrera]

1, That is not the UK. It's also a different case

2, Unless the mummy deliberately planned to give the guy MRSA, it's a null issue. To my knowledge there are no cases of situations where accidentally contracting something that is completely seperate to the ascribed ammorous activity has resulted in an OAP. The chain of causation is too vague.

3, The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt which is not easy to establish. The chain of causation again is far too vague.

They give houses away in France? xD

[wetman]

...
They give houses away in France? xD

Oh. I think I have to hand that over to my alter ego. Here she comes:

Bitch. I'm a pirate, harrrrr!

(Or a least a wench*, kind of part time)

My argument is still, that it is not about the fact that the videos have been leaked (and the case being kicked off by that), but that they were proof of an illegal activity that should not have been illegal in the first place.
Lord Whatsoever deciding about morals for all his villains.
We have the means to have referendums at short notice; maybe there's even an iphone app for that. But no, we have to stick to what those dried up stammering prunes in the House of Lords think up is best for the rabble. Oh, let me correct that, good or bad for the rabble doesn't really matter all that much.

Let's just stop here, I don't really fancy to write pages and pages of revolutionary waffle in a nappy forum. Spoils it somehow.



* And being a wench, I went back and corrected the spelling of my numpty male alter ego, so that makes your argument invalid. Meh. And yes, I'm a cow. So what? <raspberryblow>

{Love you really, Laura. wink }

[abrera]

One more point... There is no House Of Lords now for court proceedings. The Chamber for Peers still exists in that legislative capacity; but the court disappeared with Part 3 of Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

I'm sorry I'm a pedant xD I can't turn it off... I've tried but it just happens... on one of those facebook dealys I once got this for a '1 good point' '1 bad point' about this person question:

GP:

'Your mind is like a tomb of law'

Bad Point

'You're forever locked there and cannot turn it off'

I think the only thing I like more is Power Rangers... that's a non-sexual fetish!

[Pamperboy94]

I kinda always wanted to have a girl sit on my lap. We'll both be wearing nothing but a diaper. And then I want both of us to flood our diapers so much they leak all over us. And then after that we change into eachothers just used diapers. HOT. Or it would be kinda cool to share a diaper with someone lol.

[ItchyTasty]

Rape play is a totally sketchy area, and if I had a partner that wanted me to play the 'assailant' in such a fantasy, I don't think I could. Were someone to engage in those fantasies with me, they would of course be consensual. However, they are fantasies as they stand, and most of them remain firmly in the realm of the imaginal because they are on such sketchy moral ground as it is. I'd never expect a woman to put on a strap on and rape me, nor would am I likely to ask one to do that as it is a kind of impossible situation to put someone in ('pretend that you're doing something really horrible to me, and I'll pretend that you are, but really everything will be just fine'). But the idea of it is arousing to me, and it taps into a complex of emotions associated with my earliest sexual experiences.

And the thing about fetishes is that they are not really defensible, as they tend not to be generated from a conscious place, that is I didn't decide that I like wearing diapers and having my agency stripped away by a dominant partner, I didn't decide that I like to be sexually objectified as an expression of self-loathing. I can provide reasons, rationales, suspected histories and causes of my kinks, but those aren't defenses, those are narrative elements in the guise of defense.

I remain undecided on the matter of whether or not our fantasies are subject to moral assessment. On the one hand, since there is no actual action there is no consequence, therefore there is no real thing to be morally assessed. On the other hand, a lot of my fantasies for example perpetrate great harms upon myself by some imagined agent, and there is (based on some of the responses thus far) a clear moral intuition that there is something problematic about that.

All that aside, let's get the conversation back on the rails.

Rape play is sliding on a VERY slippery slope of actual rape. Although it would be very grey area if both people enjoyed the fantasy, because if they acted it out too real and neighbors etc heard them the police could be called for something that's just consensual sexual roleplay.
Same goes for people how like similar dodgy stuff like kidnap roleplay.

For example how would both consenting adults know when to stop and if they wanted to stop what would be stopping signal?

[wetman]

...
For example how would both consenting adults know when to stop and if they wanted to stop what would be stopping signal?

It's very common practice to have "safe words" and "safe gestures" in that kind of play, so this is not really a problem.
You will have to trust your play partner, though; and this on both sides. If you are the active part and you are not comfortable going ahead, then your partner (the play victim) also has to understand that you want to stop.

[AbriForm]

Ahem,


My oddest sex fantasy that was not one of my fetishes? My GF at the time wanted me to pwn her. As in, tie her to the bed and use her. Which, was actually quite fun. Safe words were used, and all had a good night.

My kinkiest sex fantasies were realized last year, when my GF turned the tables and catered to what I wanted. I was sitting chatting with her, diapered, and suddenly (as in, out of nowhere), she started using her feet to pleasure me. Thick socks and everything.

She then moved me to the bed, put both of her socked feet in my face, and sat atop me stroking my diaper and massaging my face with her feet/socks. I held her all night afterwards. While we're on and off partners, she is regularly reminded that I'll always be thankful for that.

[cheapthrills]

I seem to have collected an aweful lot of fetishes over my sexually active life.
No doubt helped by my sexuality ranging wildly about from straight to gay, and anything inbetween at differnt times..

My first introduction to any fetish, was basically from my first serious girlfriend, who was quite a lot older than me, who introduced me to watersports/golden showers. Interestingsly, I think, I was imeddiatly the submissive in this, something which has continued throughout whatever else might change (like switching sexualities etc). She was fun, and filthy... hmmm... happy memories...

Then I guess it'd be skipping forward quite a few years, till I went basically 100% homosexual, (not quite 100% mind)... and I got heavily into anal play, toys, sex, etc, and I guess that kind of eventually led on to my newest, which is this one, the diapers... I'm not exactly the worlds most devoute scat player, but .. well, even I start feel a bit uncomfortable talking about it that* much.

My other big fetish, is feet; Something I was introduced to by a male sexual partner, (we were doing a lot of anal and water sports/pee/golden shower stuff too) but which really got going with a female, some years later, who's feet were just gorgeous (if you like feet of course). She enjoyed having her feet 'worshiped', etc., (we met off an online feet fetish site), and we were both supprized when I came from just licking, smelling and otherwise using her feet with my mouth and face... that was quite something (and never really found as nice and gorgeous and responsive a pair of feet since, mores the pity).

My most recent, as I said is the diaper thing, whcih I'm only really getting into, and other ones include breast/tit play (I can multiple orgasm from having my nipples/chest stimulated), rape role-play/violent sex/BDSM/Bondage etc (all of which is current with my current (male) partner). hmmm... think* that is about it... or at least all I'm willing to admit too...