RE: Am I being unreasonable?

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Am I being unreasonable?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Am I being unreasonable?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:33:17 AM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

quote:

It is criminal to engage in masturbation in front of children. Even with sleeping children, the assumption is made that the adult in charge is responsible for their safety and care. Child neglect and endangerment laws cover the nocturnal hours as well.

Umm i worked at the prosecutor's office for a long time and i have never heard of this. I mean many parents have kids sleep in their room when they are babies and have sex in the room. Last i checked these people aren't being arrested for child neglect and endangerment. This can also apply to any guests in the home at the parent's invitation.

So any parents having sex and their kids walk in and watch because the parents are unaware are committing a criminal act? Somehow i really think you are reaching here. DELIBERATE sexual acts in front of children who are watching yes - i can see how that can be criminally questioned -- but simply doing a sexual act kids may encounter is beyond silly. Hell then any parents who have sex while having kids live in the house would be guilty of what you are claiming.

Don't get me wrong, i am not advocating inappropriate sex and sexual acts especially in front of kids, but this is way to reaching to make sexual acts WRONG just because kids MAY encounter you in the midst of same.

To me, this is more inappropriate because of the parents of the child's expectations of a babysitter than the act itself and a sleeping kid in the house.

angel

< Message edited by barelynangel -- 8/9/2009 8:39:24 AM >

_____________________________

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:36:19 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

Love a kid walks in and see you smiling, thats fine, a kid walks in and sees you vigorously rubbing yourself. You are not their parent, you have no right in deeming what is acceptable for them to see, and for many this would be acceptable. I am just getting the feeling you are being obtuse now to be honest, it would worry me if you actually cant see the distinction.

Any distinction that lies upon some phantom "because it sorta feels that way" is intellectually defunct. If we cannot specify the distinctions, all we're doing is (no pun intended) intellectual masturbation.

So...touching one's self (with the intent of sexual arousal) while in non-separated proximity of a child is morally "not acceptable". This, In presume, is for the chance of the child seeing it (or being made privy to it through any sensory input).

So, if she had gone to the bathroom and done it (which, we can perhaps assume would take no longer than a good #2?), would that have been "acceptable"?

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/9/2009 8:37:33 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:36:44 AM

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

NZ, if new limits arising is unreasonable, does that mean that it's ok for me to inject a submissive with heroin if they haven't explicitly brought the issue up?

_____________________________

If you're going to quote from the Book of Revelation,
Don't keep calling it the "Book of Revelations",
There's no "s", it's the Book of Revelation,
As revealed to Saint John the Divine.

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:38:36 AM

Posts: 374
Joined: 5/27/2007
Status: offline

Folks .. I hate to be the voice of reason here (again), but we are making this far more difficult than it has to be.

This entire situation can be resolved with two very simple words.

FAKE IT!!

Out.

_____________________________

Do you have any idea how many bones you have left for me to break? - Batman

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:38:42 AM

Posts: 5392
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline

The thing is, a babysitter doesn't have the same supposed rights as the parents/ homeowners.

Types of Lewd Conduct Offenses
There are two types of lewd conduct offenses: engaging in lewd conduct, and soliciting another to engage in lewd conduct. The California Judicial Council's jury instruction made clear what the prosecutors must prove in a case involving engaging in lewd conduct. They must prove that:
1. The defendant willfully engaged in the touching of his own or another person's genitals, buttocks, or female breast;
2. The defendant did so with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify himself or another person, or to annoy or offend another person;
3. At the time the defendant engaged in the conduct, he was in a public place or a place open to the public or to public view;
4. At the time the defendant engaged in the conduct, someone else who might have been offended was present;
5. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that another person who might have been offended by his conduct was present.
Note that a prosecutor does not have to prove that another person was offended, just that they might be. But just the qualification that another person must have been present is significant.

In the state of California where the OP lives, this is the case.

< Message edited by lronitulstahp -- 8/9/2009 8:40:07 AM >

_____________________________

Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:39:05 AM

LillyoftheVally

Posts: 1826
Joined: 7/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
So, if she had gone to the bathroom and done it (which, we can perhaps assume would take no longer than a good #2?), would that have been "acceptable"?

If the op felt comfortable with it sure. But I dont think you should ever do something against your moral compass simply to get someone off.

To be honest that is the issue here, NZ you go and wank wherever you like, but accept that not all people think that it is appropriate to do it in someone elses home. I think that would be open minded.

_____________________________

'My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'

Nah I am not happy to see you either

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:40:26 AM

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SassySarijane

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: SassySarijane

I think it was unreasonable. I wouldn't have done it. It's one thing to do "naughty" things in your home when your own kids are asleep. It's something else when you are asked/expected/ordered to do something naughty in someone else's home while babysitting someone else's kids.

Because the kids, surely, can detect these subtle moral differences?

No, because of the manners, courtesy and morals I was taught growing up. In someone else's house, without their ok on it, I'm not going to do a sexual task for a dominant. It's their house and their rules and expectations. If I can't have the courtesy to respect that, then I don't need to be in their home, watching their kids with them gone. If I'm there to babysit their kids for them, I don't need to be playing sex games in their house during that time.

Yea, that pretty much sums it up for me also. Basic respect goes a long way.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to SassySarijane)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:42:19 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

NZ, if new limits arising is unreasonable, does that mean that it's ok for me to inject a submissive with heroin if they haven't explicitly brought the issue up?

If she is incapable of obeying your demand in a dynamic where she is expected to or if she (via your choice of orders) is incapable of trusting your judgment and/or upholding to the consequences of not obeying them, I'd suggest it's time to call off the relationship/dynamic entirely.

So, more precisely: It is okay for you to expect that injecting your sub with heroin, if they haven't brought it up (and drugs are usually something that comes up), is a choice of action that has been surrendered to you and, therefore, available.

From that point on, it depends on how she brings up discomfort with it and whether you're at all interested in being lenient about it.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/9/2009 8:51:11 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Apocalypso)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:45:37 AM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

quote:

4. At the time the defendant engaged in the conduct, someone else who might have been offended was present;
5. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that another person who might have been offended by his conduct was present.

Umm lronitulstahp I am going to use your own bolded language -- you are focused on the wrong thing that would be presented in court ----- you are focused on offended -- the courts would be focused on PRESENT.

I could be offended all i want if i KNEW my neighbors were having sex --- however, its not offensive act criminally based upon your jury instructions unless i am actually present and they KNOW or have a reasonable knowledge i am somehow PRESENT.

if a child is SLEEPING in a room that is NOT the same room as the person -- then there is a REASONABLE belief that the person can have that there was NO ONE PRESENT. PRESENT means someone is well actually PRESENT. If a person has a reasonable belief that someone is SLEEPING in another room in a house that person is not considered PRESENT in the same room. And if the sleeping person enters the room wherein the person doing the sexual act without that person KNOWING, then there is not a reasonable knowledge that someone else is PRESENT.

Careful of putting your own spin on things when citing jury instructions. The courts are very clear that assumptions are not what a jury is allowed but they answer the EXACT question being asked.

MOST reasonable people would not say that a person in another room is PRESENT in the room wherein the act occured. Its why when someone is murdered in one room a person is not present for the murder if they were not actually in the room wherein they may WITNESS same.

angel

< Message edited by barelynangel -- 8/9/2009 8:48:00 AM >

_____________________________

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:46:34 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

If the op felt comfortable with it sure. But I dont think you should ever do something against your moral compass simply to get someone off.

We are talking about an M/s dynamic. An ownership dynamic.

You're essentially saying: "I don't think you should ever do something that you have specifically given outright indication you would do."

This comes back to a point I've been tossing about that having any sort of deep emotionally-based morality or faith is inherently contradictory to having a slave mindset (unless, as has been mentioned, the slave is lucky enough to be in a relationship with someone who won't expect of her the things she wouldn't want anyway).

This is why walking into a D/s or M/s dynamic isn't something just to play with. I mean...maybe it is. Maybe most people don't have the commitment and integrity expectations that I do...and I actually don't mean that in an aloof way. I've been told I have a strict (unrealistic?) concept of expectation and honor.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/9/2009 8:52:32 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:46:56 AM

Posts: 15659
Status: offline

I'm going to assume this is an online Dom only..no real life, face to face involved.

If that is the case...if you're babysitting, imo it's inappropriate. Call me a prude. I'm fine with that.

When I used to have babysitters watch my child I expected them to watch my child even when she was sleeping..not be sitting on a computer surfing porn sites or sexually chatting with others or on the phone doing the same.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:50:20 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

And people are welcome to be prudes if it makes them happy. I would hope, though, that such a self-realization is coupled with an understanding that certain relationship dynamics do not meld well with being a prude.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to littlewonder)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:53:51 AM

Posts: 5392
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline

Honestly not putting a "spin" on anything. i read this as a layman (or lay"woman" as the case may be

) i read this as myself. A person that spent some time as a babysitter. When i babysat, the child's room door was open, and i was in a living room. Usually literally only a few feet away. In my mind that would mean "present", but since i'm not familiar with the intricacies of "lawyer speak", i suppose that it is different. (Who knew?)

Just as apparently i don't know legalese as well as some, and it might have been somewhat irresponsible of me to quote a lawyer, you don't know me, and so it was wrong of you to assume i was attempting any " spinning"....i shine, sparkle, and glimmer...but i don't do "spin".

~tulip, straight up....no twist

< Message edited by lronitulstahp -- 8/9/2009 8:55:05 AM >

_____________________________

Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:59:07 AM

Posts: 5392
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline

i just re-read your edited post barely...Initially i took it as snarky, but after reading it with the added info, i might have been wrong. If it wasn't meant to be snarky, i apologize that i took it to be so,

_____________________________

Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley

(in reply to lronitulstahp)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 8:59:16 AM

LillyoftheVally

Posts: 1826
Joined: 7/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

If the op felt comfortable with it sure. But I dont think you should ever do something against your moral compass simply to get someone off.

We are talking about an M/s dynamic. An ownership dynamic.

You're essentially saying: "I don't think you should ever do something that you have specifically given outright indication you would do."

If I was in a 'm/s' dynamic and my master told me to murder someone I wouldnt do it (yeah about as stupid an example as your toilet one but seems we like working in ridiculous analogies)

_____________________________

'My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'

Nah I am not happy to see you either

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 9:01:09 AM

Posts: 374
Joined: 5/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

General Reply -- If a slave disobeys she is still the Man's slave. Sorry but slavery is NOT so cut and dried as the if you disobey you are no longer a slave --- that's the BS of people who have never lived the actuality and want to sound good. Slaves DO disobey -- they STILL are slaves, they simply have to deal with the consequences of their disobedience -- yes, one of which may be getting released but most men who become Masters while the goal is obedience don't waste their time requiring perfection without errors and disobedience at times.

angel

Give that woman a ceegar!

Thank you, angel! Even in the term Total Power Exchange, there is still the Exchange. All that "slaves have no rights" and "slaves have no limits" stuff is complete nonsense. People keep forgetting, there is no broad brush that you can paint everyone with.

Applying the Webster's definition to certain words we use does not always work. It's been proven time and again. If we were to apply the dictionary definition, a lot of us would be doing time after our partner told someone we "beat their ass".

Slaves can say no, just as submissives can. Whether you call yourself slave, submissive, worm, pig or cow, negotiation and consent still apply.

_____________________________

Do you have any idea how many bones you have left for me to break? - Batman

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 9:04:52 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

If I was in a 'm/s' dynamic and my master told me to murder someone I wouldnt do it (yeah about as stupid an example as your toilet one but seems we like working in ridiculous analogies)

Well, that would depend on 3 things:

1) Whether such obvious issues have or have not been brought up in the discussion of limits.
2) The degree of your devotion to a relationship title that implies a total power exchange (unless M/s means something different to you, which it may for many).
3) Whether you've adequately gauged the intellectual competence and sensibility of the person you've surrendered to.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 9:06:54 AM

LillyoftheVally

Posts: 1826
Joined: 7/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

If I was in a 'm/s' dynamic and my master told me to murder someone I wouldnt do it (yeah about as stupid an example as your toilet one but seems we like working in ridiculous analogies)

Well, that would depend on 3 things:

1) Whether such obvious issues have or have not been brought up in the discussion of limits.
2) The degree of your devotion to a relationship title that implies a total power exchange (unless M/s means something different to you, which it may for many).
3) Whether you've adequately gauged the intellectual competence and sensibility of the person you've surrendered to.

Yeah I am such a crap submissive I have never told someone I wouldnt murder someone for them as a limit, Christ I put myself in such a vulnerable position if I wanted to keep my trueness card, thanks for the heads up, I will certainly add it to my list in future

_____________________________

'My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'

Nah I am not happy to see you either

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 9:08:46 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally
(yeah about as stupid an example as your toilet one but seems we like working in ridiculous analogies)

And either of these are "stupid" because...?

The reason fallacies get promulgated is because they are deemed beyond the realm of consideration and thrust into a "duh" box without proper scrutiny because of how common they supposedly become (like that silly "we only use 10% of our brain!" myth).

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to LillyoftheVally)

RE: Am I being unreasonable? - 8/9/2009 9:09:38 AM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

Then in a court of law you would be wrong in assuming because the judge would explain to you that you must answer the questions ASKED based upon the evidence presented and i can guarantee you that any defense attorney worth their salt would have made SURE present was clearly defined. So while you read them here as a lay person, in a court of law you would have heard the evidence of the trial and then been given these to answer based on the EVIDENCE not your opinion of what you presume.    Hell you would find a person guilty based on your opinion not fact based upon your layman reading instead of listening to the trial and reading the actual question.

You DID put a spin on it and you assumed -- its simply what you did. Whether you did so deliberately or not is irrelevant. You tried to use legalees as part of your argument and then when someone explained where you are wrong and the spin you put on it was your OWN opinion rather than the rules you should follow when answering such questions when in court.   Spins like yours make people criminals when they may not be.

All in all, the actions of the OP in my mind would have ben inappropriate lol criminal hell no -- morally wrong -- depends on who you are -- pissed of sister probably etc.     But to me the whole concept comes down to obedience and disobedience not the reasonableness of the request.

no my post wasn't snarky, and please do not call me barely -- angel or barelynangel is what is preferred. Thanks.
angel

grins amazing that i lean toward prosecution rather than defense huh? Bet you wouldn't have thought it lol.

< Message edited by barelynangel -- 8/9/2009 9:14:43 AM >

_____________________________

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson

(in reply to lronitulstahp)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Am I being unreasonable?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.082