quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisPandora

quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat

Looking at a lot of the time timeline involved, there are alot of things that shouldn't have been considered in the case. Many of the events that were protrayed as non consentual occured months and years before any complaint was made.
 
I have a bit of an issue with retro-rape claims in cases like this...

So, am I hearing you say that you also have problems with a woman who claims abuse after being tormented mentally and physically by her husband for ten years and only finally gets out of it when given an opportunity or has a moment of bravery and clarity?  *shakes head*

M. Pandora,
 
Not the same case at all, sorry. I agree that someone can withdraw consent at any time- but not retroactively, which this case stinks of.
 
Stay warm,
Lawrence

Bondage Webmaster is convicted of "forced labor" and "sex trafficking" for his sadistic sexual encounters with one of his so-called slaves.

Glenn Marcus' SlaveSpace.com relied on a novel business model: Finding sex slaves on the Internet, tying them up, whipping them and posting photographs of the process online. Membership to SlaveSpace.com started at $20 for 30 days of access.

Sometime in 1998, a woman named Jodi (referred to in court documents by her first name only) started hunting for information about what's known as BDSM--bondage, dominance/discipline, submission/sadism and masochism--and found Marcus in an AOL chat room. He went by the screen name "GMYourGod" and demanded absolute obedience.

Later that year, Jodi traveled to Maryland to meet Marcus and a fellow sex slave named Joanna. He whipped Jodi, with her consent, and carved the word "slave" on her stomach with a knife. The next month, she sent a petition to Marcus saying in part: "I am begging to serve you Sir, completely, with no limitations."

In January 1999, Jodi moved to Maryland to live with Joanna, and Marcus would regularly visit them from his home on Long Island. Occasionally the BDSM-and-sex sessions became severe

Many of these incidents were photographed and uploaded to SlaveSpace.com, which Jodi spent much of her time updating, including writing diaries for the site. She referred to herself as "pooch" or "poochie" and wrote lengthy, rambling essays saying things like: "i need to serve Him, to please Him. i not only want to, i need to. i feel this so deeply, every single part of me feels this."

At some point around August 2001, they became estranged, but, according to Jodi, she felt unable to escape the relationship because she was afraid of Marcus. She later acknowledged staying in contact with him through 2003, even going camping with him.

After Marcus would not remove the photos from the Internet (he claimed to have a valid model release), Jodi contacted the FBI. Federal prosecutors charged Marcus with sex trafficking, forced labor and dissemination of obscene materials through an interactive computer service.

Shortly after Glenn Marcus and Jodi (referred to in public records by her first name only) started their master/slave relationship in 1998, he began photographing her as well as other women during BDSM scenes for a website he created called Slavespace.com.

In 2001, Jodi left the relationship and asked Marcus to take her photos off the site, but he refused.

Two and a half years later, she told the FBI she endured intense sadism at the hands of her master, was forced to work on his website, and felt like she couldn't leave him.

The U.S. Attorney charged Marcus under three federal statutes: sex trafficking (coercing or selling a person into a situation of sexual exploitation, like prostitution or pornography); forced labor (using threats or violence to obtain labor or services); and obscenity (for the content of his website).

The prosecution offered Marcus a plea deal that included no jail time, which he declined.

On March 5, 2007, he was convicted on the first two counts, but the jury ruled that the website was not obscene (a significant and surprising victory, considering it featured images of extreme activities like asphyxiation and temporary genital piercing).

She said she was afraid to leave because Marcus threatened to show her family the photos
 
Jodi socialized and vacationed with Marcus several times after the break up.

Jodi, gave conflicting accounts of an alleged campaign of sadism by Glenn Marcus, 53, operator of a website devoted to BDSM - shorthand for bondage, domination and sadomasochism.

Marcus included Jodi and other women in thousands of photos posted on his website - a practice that prompted the government to bring obscenity charges along with sex trafficking and a forced labor count.  The most serious charge - forced labor

Jodi told the jury that after meeting Marcus over the Internet in 1998, she agreed to become one of his "slaves."

When the 39-year-old Jodi failed to properly perform tasks for the defendant's website in 2001, he punished her by putting a ball in her mouth, closing it shut with surgical needles and hanging her on a wall, she said. Other times, he tied her down and mutilated her genitals with a smoldering cigarette as she screamed out in pain, she said.

Jodi testified she built up enough courage to leave Marcus in late 2001, but also conceded she continued to have contact with him, even going camping. She decided to go to the FBI when he refused to take her photos off the Internet.

FRIENDS OF SLAVESPACE -

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite
So, you dont care that an innocent man is in jail?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite

Hi all...,
Laurell wrote that "you will never make the justice system and society accept that level of hardcore play.   It makes no difference whether she cried wolf or was truly unwilling. ". So, you dont care that an innocent man is in jail? You dont care that fair trials can not occur because society may not like an particular act? You want to see consensual BDSM prosecuted because vanilla folks may not like or understand it? You see no exculpatory material in the notion/idea that she lied about her situation? That doesnt trouble you? One cant consent to assault; whipping can be considered an assault. I do NOT think or believe ANY consensual BDSM act should be made criminal.
MissSCD:, many people like and enjoy needle play. You dislike where the needles were placed in this instance. That doesnt make it wrong for others, if they enjoy that. I have spoken with a few women who find the idea "kinky". Safety? What one feels safe, another can believe to be unsafe. Its so relative. As for violating her privacy, she aggreed to be photographed for the site. And its not as if Glenn could have taken a picture with her not knowing it; he invariably would say "hold that pose" before he took the picture. "Stop laughing" and "look scared" were also two big ones before the camera clicked.
Slavegirljoy: Nor was this case about the pictures, except she used them to lie about. IF she had been truthful (saying she signed a release) there would have been no case. She, however, lied and said they were forced and showed her torture. IF he had taken them down (which he did not have to, they were his property) she, I feel,  would have used them in trial to show "torture" regardless...as she was determined to lie.
Sincerely,
meesekite

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

He got what he deserved.  To me that was beyond safe to use needles to close up the mouth and have sex with the poor thing and then take pictures and violate her privacty on the internet.
Geeze.
 
Regards,  SCD

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite
Slavegirljoy: Nor was this case about the pictures, except she used them to lie about. IF she had been truthful (saying she signed a release) there would have been no case. She, however, lied and said they were forced and showed her torture. IF he had taken them down (which he did not have to, they were his property) she, I feel,  would have used them in trial to show "torture" regardless...as she was determined to lie.
Sincerely,
meesekite

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite
ShaktiSama: You write eloquently and well, but I disagree with the sum and substance of your words. You are free to feel Glenn was mean, nasty, arrogant, or the pejorative of your choice. However, as he had a legal signed release form, he was under NO obligation to take down anyones image.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite

Hello all....
ShaktiSama: You write eloquently and well, but I disagree with the sum and substance of your words. You are free to feel Glenn was mean, nasty, arrogant, or the pejorative of your choice. However, as he had a legal signed release form, he was under NO obligation to take down anyones image. Your feeling that he was nasty does NOT mean he broke law. That YOU chose to take images down with your models was YOUR choice. I am a BIG believer in personal responsibility: that means for what one does one takes the consequences. If your models didnt want to risk something, then they should NOT have posed. But, they were big boys and girls, so did choose to be on your site, knowing the ramifications of their choice. It was YOUR choice to take them down, but IF you had not wanted to, you would have been perfectly within your legal rights. I have posed for other photographers, I would NEVER ask them not to use any images I CONSENTED to make. I would believe that to be rather a tacky act.

I dont understand what you mean by "bad and abusive dominant after the fact"? If it was consensual photography, there was NO abuse, and NO torture. SHE knew what she was doing when she posed, and she knew what she was getting into before she posed....as Glenn Marcus is about consent. If anyone should be in jail, its JODI, who lied about the whole situation.
meesekite